Re: IP32 - issues with last CVS snapshoot

[Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>]

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 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...
> 

I believe it was mentioned at some point in time by someone that using "n32" 
inplace of "o64" might have a similar affect of "o64", but I can't recall what 
the outcome of that actually was (or whether or not it ever worked).

As if I could be any more vague.


--Kumba

--



-- 
"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small 
hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." 
--Elrond