From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 15 May 2003 04:55:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from crack.them.org ([IPv6:::ffff:146.82.138.56]:15264 "EHLO crack.them.org") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 15 May 2003 04:55:15 +0100 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19G9qD-0001nL-00; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:55:37 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19G9pj-0001DO-00; Wed, 14 May 2003 23:55:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 23:55:07 -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: <20030515035507.GA4654@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> <20030513193625.GA14066@nevyn.them.org> <20030513195928.GB16497@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030513195928.GB16497@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: 2391 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 09:59:28PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > [snip] > > > > 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. > > I don't think so (There's -mabi=o64). > Otherwise I would have built all my NewABI 64bit Executables as > o64 without noticing ever. :-) You are, of course, right :) > > GCC's never called the 32-bit ABI "o32". > > True, but it might be clearer if it did. I suppose... too late now. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer