From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:34:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.sonicwall.com ([IPv6:::ffff:67.115.118.12]:31816 "EHLO relay.sonicwall.com") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:34:28 +0000 Received: from us0exb02.us.sonicwall.com ([10.50.128.202]) by relay.sonicwall.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:34:26 -0800 Received: from [10.0.15.99] ([10.0.15.99]) by us0exb02.us.sonicwall.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:34:26 -0800 Message-ID: <420D08C1.8050105@total-knowledge.com> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:34:25 -0800 From: "Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh" Organization: Total Knowledge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041221 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: "Stephen P. Becker" , Frederic TEMPORELLI - astek , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: IP32 - issues with last CVS snapshoot References: <420CEE7F.3080201@astek.fr> <420CF611.5030705@gentoo.org> <420D006E.3000107@total-knowledge.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2005 19:34:26.0061 (UTC) FILETIME=[B21DDBD0:01C51070] 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: 7233 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: ilya@total-knowledge.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: > > > >>O64 may not be supported ABI, but it provides us with a feature that is really >>usefull: >>specifically, it generates 32 bit symbol addresses instead of 64 bit ones. >>This cuts >>down on code size considerably. If this feature was implemented in toolchain >>as separate >>switch, O64 hack could go away. >> >> > > Well, the topic has been beaten to death here, so you don't really need >to illuminate me -- it's only due to this popular request I've implemented >the ability to do 32-bit builds for 64-bit kernel. > I know > I just wonder why >people insisting on such a setup don't actually contribute some code to do >that cleanly and keep switching between hacks as they stop working one by >one... > > Because they hope that if they annoy you enough, you'll do it yourself ;-) -- Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh Total Knowledge. CTO http://www.total-knowledge.com