This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [patch] fix configure for powerpc altivec and spe
- From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- To: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:35:39 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch] fix configure for powerpc altivec and spe
- References: <51E57879 dot 9040406 at mentor dot com> <51E57B34 dot 3020106 at redhat dot com> <51E58F36 dot 6020301 at mentor dot com>
On 07/16/2013 02:21 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 07/16/2013 09:56 AM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
On 07/16/2013 12:44 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
Why have you removed vec_callocr.o and vec_reallocr.o from the list of
extra_objects for altivec?
Other than that, the patch looks fine.
I removed those objects from the list because they didn't build and I
had not noticed that there is indeed support for them in vec_mallocr.c.
Now I see that the rules in Makefile.in for building those two objects
are quite different from the rules for building the other objects; where
are those rules generated, and how would I tweak that for objects that
have different base names from the source file?
It has to be done manually in Makefile.am. You can base it on one of the
generated rules for another object, put it into Makefile.am (adding the
as needed and naming the object and source appropriately).
I'm confused. The old rules are for $(lpfx)whatever.o and the generated
rules for the objects with matching sources are for lib_a-whatever.o, but
the list of objects doesn't use "lib_a-", which I suppose means that they
are built using default rules instead of the ones in the Makefile. Should
the list in extra_objs use a prefix so they are built using the specific
The lpfx prefix is defaulted in configure.host to be lib_a- . It was
used to allow
Makefile.am files to add manual rules and support libtool. Using lib_a-
fine in this case and then specify the normal flags plus the specific
defines used to
trigger the code in vec_mallocr.c.