This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: possible powerpc 40x problem in 2.12
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:52:43 -0500
- Subject: Re: possible powerpc 40x problem in 2.12
- References: <3C7EB85C.9DD6B692@OARcorp.com> <20020228183333.B24995@nevyn.them.org> <20020301050116.GA1059@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <3C7F6FE8.F8FCBAE3@OARcorp.com> <20020301130155.GE1059@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <3C7FBCD6.4A7ABA53@OARcorp.com>
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 11:39:34AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> Alan Modra wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 06:11:20AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > >
> > > Could you point me to where the gcc cpu cflags are translated into
> > > gas flags in gcc so I can put together a patch and submit it? This
> > > is a new one for me but I am happy to try to fix it. :)
> >
> > In this case, gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h:ASM_CPU_SPEC
>
> Thank you. It really wasn't that hard to decipher once I knew where
> to look. :)
>
> It currently has
>
> %{mcpu=403: -mppc} \
>
> and should be changed to
>
> %{mcpu=403: -m403} \
> %{mcpu=405: -m405} \
>
> Right?
>
> Also gcc does not appear to know anything about the -m74xx set of
> switches. Should it? I know RTEMS uses inline assembly that
> makes this matter sometimes.
Yes, it probably should... these changes should wait until 2.12 is
released, as they add a dependency on the existence of those flags.
Ugh.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer