From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:32:55 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Stef Simoens , Olaf Hering , Andrew Morton , Linux/PPC Development Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix missing option in binutils version check Message-ID: <20040704183255.GD2146@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040614180734.GB3247@suse.de> <20040614205537.GB7798@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040614211931.GA21113@suse.de> <20040615161258.GA14528@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040615172511.GA21667@suse.de> <20040615174648.GC14528@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040703222918.GA10425@suse.de> <40E75DC7.7070601@coditel.net> <20040704024149.GB2146@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:32:52AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 03:30:47AM +0200, Stef Simoens wrote: > > > Olaf Hering wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, Tom Rini wrote: > > > >>And yes, passing -many does work on all older supported versions of > > > >>binutils. So perhaps we should just add -Wa,-many to our cflags and be > > > >>done with it now (and for future fixes of this sort). > > > > > > > >gcc 3.2 passes only -mppc, so all altive instructions will fail to > > > >compile without either -many or -maltivec > > > > > > Are there altivec instructions when CONFIG_ALTIVEC is not set? > > > > Yes. And I can forsee in the future were we might have BookE specific > > ones in the same situation. > > Perhaps it makes sense to add a directive to the assembler to switch on the > fly, cfr. the `.chip' directive on m68k? E.g. using AFAIK, the problem which caused the need for introducing -maltivec was a problem with the disassembler and conflicting opcodes. It should still be able to check the validity of things with -many (I would hope..). -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/