This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
> Having an unambiguous default ABI is desirable. If the name of the
> compiler is mips64-elf-gcc or mipsisa32-elf-gcc, then there should only
> be one ABI that defaults for each of those and it should not depend on
> how the toolchain was configured and built. Otherwise, users might need
> to always specify the ABI they want to use for every compile and that
> would be tedious and prone to errors.
I agree. I feel that setting the abi at configure time isn't even under
consideration. It would be confusing and cause more problems than this
patch is fixing.
> > >
> > > 1. Stick with the idea in the patch I sent. Selecting a 64-bit
> > > processor would usually select the 64-bit EABI, but adding
> > > -mgp32 forces the 32-bit version.
> > >
> > > 2. Reverse of (1). You get the 32-bit version of the EABI
> > > unless you use -mgp64.
> > >
> > > 3. Add eabi32, eabi64, meabi32 and meabi64 to -mabi. You get
> > > the 32-bit version unless you use -mabi=eabi64.
> Speaking as an embedded user, any of the three options work. The first
> one has the advantage of working even if you happen to have an old
> version of the toolchain around by accident.
> For the above choices, my order of preference would be: (3), (2), (1).
> However, I think there needs to be at least one release that serves as
> a transitional introduction if (3) is chosen.
I want to keep #1 around. It just seems to make the best sense for me,
and we might as well keep as much backward compatibility as possible :)
> A ask a hard question...
> I would have no significant problems with _MIPS_R2000 and _MIPS_R3000
> using the same value rather than being independent if that were necessary.
> However, I think that if both symbols need to exist, it might be useful
> to have distinct values for them if possible.
I can agree with this...
I will not grease the monkey bars