This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
Le dimanche 22 octobre 2006 Ã 22:14 -0400, John David Anglin a Ãcrit :
> > > Yes, but it's wrong. I'm not worried about changing it since
> > > there isn't really a 64-bit netbsd target. Also, GCC doesn't
> > > support hppa64-netbsd.
> >
> > Fair enough. =) I've so far been trying to preserve behaviour. I'm
> > happy to change it to just elf64-hppa for now if that's better.
In exploring how other arches handle unifying 32 and 64 bit binutils, it
looks like they rely on a command line switch to get things set early
enough. output_file_create calls TARGET_FORMAT before the asm file is
read, so we can't use the .LEVEL instruction to tell is if we're
elf32-hppa or elf64-hppa.
It looks like the best thing to do is to support the -march parameter,
similar to gcc. gcc supports:
-march={1.0,1.1,2.0}
Should I add 2.0w to this for 64bit? Talking about it with Randolph on
IRC, he pointed out that hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 targets a 32 bit
userspace on a wide kernel.
HP/UX as supports the syntax:
+DAarchitecture
But I'd rather stick with something that feels more like the rest of the
arches and toolchain.
Thanks!
--
Jeff Bailey - http://www.raspberryginger.com/jbailey/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |