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] |