From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:54:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([IPv6:::ffff:204.127.198.39]:3529 "EHLO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:54:29 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (pcp05077810pcs.waldrf01.md.comcast.net[68.54.246.193]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2005021200541601500e6t10e>; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:54:20 +0000 Message-ID: <420D5374.4000006@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:53:08 -0500 From: Kumba User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 7236 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: kumba@gentoo.org 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 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