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

[Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1534 bytes --]

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.
> 
> The gcc approach is just bloody awful.

I agree that the GCC approach to cross-compilation could use significant
improvement.  In particular, I'd like to just specify a set of architectures,
or "all of them", at compile time, and have GCC support all of those
architectures in the same GCC binary.  Combined with GCC's existing "sysroot"
approach to multiple architecture support, this would make cross-compilation
much easier.

However, in the meantime, GCC doesn't seem to have any such thing.  How do we
want to implement it in Sparse?  I don't think we have enough information on
the GCC command line.  I suppose we could allow specifying an architecture
explicitly; for cgcc, we could also allow specifying the compiler name for
cross-compilation and then deriving the architecture name from the compiler
name if not explicitly specified.

I'd like to see much of cgcc disappear; it should do nothing except invoke GCC
and Sparse, and Sparse should handle the architecture issues that cgcc
currently handles.

- Josh Triplett


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]