Re: [PATCH 2/6] Hardcode actual type sizes, add -m32 support

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 02:25 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> While I agree that I'd like a better approach (specifically, I want any Sparse
>>> build to support any target arch), I don't yet have a solution for that, and
>>> this patch does at least seem like an improvement over the current hardcoded
>>> values.
>> That's my desire as well:  My ideal sparse backend should be able to 
>> compile x86, x86-64, ppc64, ia64, arm, etc. with just a change of 
>> command line switches.
> 
> That would probably mean having some runtime-loadable files describing
> the architectures,

Runtime-loadable, or compiled in.  But in general... agreed.


>> The gcc approach is just bloody awful.
> 
> Ironically, gcc specfiles do something like that.  Of course, they are
> not sufficient to actually _compile_ the code, but they may be
> sufficient to verify that code.

I was mainly grousing about having to recompile gcc for each target, 
which is insanely silly.

	Jeff