From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:05:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from h4.dl5rb.org.uk ([81.2.74.4]:27557 "EHLO ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S23103265AbYKDJE6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:04:58 +0000 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mA494AK3019031; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:04:10 GMT Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id mA494AY2019023; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:04:10 GMT Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:04:10 +0000 From: Ralf Baechle To: Kumba Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Linux MIPS List , rdsandiford@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc Message-ID: <20081104090410.GC7291@linux-mips.org> References: <490A90F4.6040601@gentoo.org> <490C05A9.9070707@gentoo.org> <87abcjibsl.fsf@firetop.home> <490CA4C8.40904@gentoo.org> <87tzargrn4.fsf@firetop.home> <490CEDB9.6030600@gentoo.org> <87prleh2hc.fsf@firetop.home> <490EBDE2.6010709@gentoo.org> <87myggilk2.fsf@firetop.home> <490FF63A.7010900@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <490FF63A.7010900@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 21182 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: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:14:02AM -0500, Kumba wrote: >> Agreed, but that's just as true of option 1. Each option is as correct >> as the other. It's just a question of whether we need the combination: >> >> -mips1 -mllsc -mfix-r10000 >> >> to be accepted, or whether we can treat it as a compile-time error. > > Hmm, which do you think makes sense? From a usage perspective, most It's a crude way of asking for a generic MIPS binary that runs on anything but works best on MIPS II+. Makes me wonder if there is a point in having a single gcc option, something like -march=generic which selects something like this, including all workarounds? Ralf