From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Triplett Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Hardcode actual type sizes, add -m32 support Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:54:07 -0700 Message-ID: <46835B0F.4080606@freedesktop.org> References: <20070628053954.30704.66440.stgit@dv.roinet.com> <20070628053959.30704.91680.stgit@dv.roinet.com> <20070628055850.GE21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> <46834FA0.8010201@freedesktop.org> <46835471.4070000@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB48F3C61F5C3CAE4349B4089" Return-path: Received: from mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.10]:48588 "EHLO mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759062AbXF1GyK (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:54:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46835471.4070000@garzik.org> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Al Viro , Pavel Roskin , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigB48F3C61F5C3CAE4349B4089 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jeff Garzik wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: >> While I agree that I'd like a better approach (specifically, I want an= y Sparse >> build to support any target arch), I don't yet have a solution for tha= t, and >> this patch does at least seem like an improvement over the current har= dcoded >> values. >=20 > That's my desire as well: My ideal sparse backend should be able to=20 > compile x86, x86-64, ppc64, ia64, arm, etc. with just a change of=20 > command line switches. >=20 > 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 architectu= res, 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 "sysr= oot" approach to multiple architecture support, this would make cross-compilat= ion much easier. However, in the meantime, GCC doesn't seem to have any such thing. How d= o 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 architectur= e explicitly; for cgcc, we could also allow specifying the compiler name fo= r cross-compilation and then deriving the architecture name from the compil= er name if not explicitly specified. I'd like to see much of cgcc disappear; it should do nothing except invok= e GCC and Sparse, and Sparse should handle the architecture issues that cgcc currently handles. - Josh Triplett --------------enigB48F3C61F5C3CAE4349B4089 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGg1sPGJuZRtD+evsRAhg2AJoCQ5BnHos0fBzrxbH1a0Zn2T3MWwCgmsBM c5wxnjd/+f0C1H1tPZm+w0E= =ietp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB48F3C61F5C3CAE4349B4089--