From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (IDENT:qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15288 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:25:00 -0600 Received: from ottawa.linuxcare.com (HELO localhost) (216.208.98.2) by mailserv2.iuinc.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2000 22:26:22 -0000 Received: from dhd by localhost with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 139xbs-0006Uy-00 for ; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 18:25:36 -0400 To: parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com From: David Huggins-Daines Date: 05 Jul 2000 18:25:35 -0400 Message-ID: <87u2e4kye8.fsf@linuxcare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [parisc-linux] untested but building 64-bit toolchain, issues/questions List-ID: Hi, I've checked in some bits to get binutils-2.10 to build for 64-bit Linux/ELF targets. I have not even attempted to test it yet, but it doesn't seem to break my 32-bit stuff. Wherever possible I tried to reuse the existing 64-bit HP/UX stuff, however I had to do some kludgy things to work around problems in the way the configuration is set up. I am using 'hppa2.0w-*-linux-gnu*' as the target architecture string, so to build a cross-binutils for this target, use the following configure command: ../binutils-2.10/configure --enable-64-bit-bfd --target=hppa2.0w-linux I've only tested this in Linux/i386 for the time being. A couple of questions: 1) What is the proper GNU architecture string for 64-bit Linux on PA-RISC? On #parisc we sort of decided on using 'hppa1.1-*-linux-*' for 32-bit Linux and 'hppa2.0w-*-linux-*' for 64-bit Linux. However the existing configuration files use some other strange pattern like 'hppa*64*-*-*' to configure for 64-bit PA-RISC. Seeing as hppa2.0w is 64-bit by definition I don't think this makes much sense. 2) A corollary to this problem is that the choice of a 32- or 64-bit target in gas is determined at configure time rather than at runtime. Every other architecture allows you to specify the architecture revision, code model, and word size on the assembler command line (it's the compiler that gets configured differently), and it would be nice if we could too. Can anyone think of a reason why we cannot do this? 3) Finally, we use the 'linux' emulation for the assembler instead of the 'hppa' or 'hppa64' ones. I had to kludge in a separate 'linuxhppa64' target in order to get TARGET_WORD_SIZE defined properly. Can anyone think of a better way to do this? I think that merging the 32 and 64-bit code as noted above would be the Right Thing to do. Cheers. -- dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.