From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 13 May 2003 20:36:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from crack.them.org ([IPv6:::ffff:146.82.138.56]:61843 "EHLO crack.them.org") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 May 2003 20:36:51 +0100 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19Ffa3-00070H-00; Tue, 13 May 2003 14:36:55 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19FfZZ-0003fU-00; Tue, 13 May 2003 15:36:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:36:25 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiemo Seufer Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Guido Guenther Subject: Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18 Message-ID: <20030513193625.GA14066@nevyn.them.org> References: <20030318154155.GF2613@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030318160303.GN13122@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20030318174241.GG2613@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030318190841.GO13122@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20030318232454.GA19990@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030319001652.GB19189@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20030513113316.GU3889@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030513192735.GA16497@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030513192735.GA16497@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 2362 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: dan@debian.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:27:35PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Guido Guenther wrote: > [snip] > > > > So to build kernels for say IP22 R5k I'd change the current > > > > GCCFLAGS += -mcpu=r5000 -mips2 -Wa,--trap > > > > to > > > > GCCFLAGS += -mabi=o32 -march=R5000 -mtune=R5000 -Wa,--trap > > > > where as for R4X00 I use > > > > GCCFLAGS += -mabi=o32 -march=R4600 -mtune=R4600 -Wa,--trap > > > > Correct? > > > > > > Yes, this should work. You can leave the -mtune out, since it defaults > > > to the value of -march anyway. > > Just for completeness: I had to use: > > GCCFLAGS += -mabi=32 -march=r4600 -mtune=r4600 -Wa,--trap > > to make gcc-3.3 happy (note the 32 instead of o32). > > Yes, IIRC 64 vs. n64 has the same problem. That's not quite the same: 64 is o64, n64 is n64. GCC's never called the 32-bit ABI "o32". -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer