From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04461DDF98 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:44:22 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200706291545.53890.arnd@arndb.de> References: <18052.42546.78964.805791@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <200706291545.53890.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5921DF9C-31D0-4805-B699-4E634DAA2FB4@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:44:23 -0500 To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 29 June 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote: >> It turns out that with Arnd's patches we now get "-mcpu=powerpc64" on >> the command line, and that means that gcc *doesn't* put "-mppc64" the >> as command line, and as barfs on the 64-bit instructions. That's >> presumably a gcc bug, but we'll have to work around it. I think the >> best thing is just to not put the -mcpu=powerpc64 in CFLAGS when no >> specific CPU is selected. > > I can't reproduce the problem here unfortunately. My idea was to > always > pass _some_ -mcpu= flag, in order to make sure it does not use > an inappropriate default, e.g. when the compiler is built for a > default > for power4 but you actually want to build a power3 kernel. > > Would it work reliably if we switch the arguments to > '-mcpu=powerpc64 -m64' instead of '-m64 -mcpu=powerpc64'? That > might be better than taking it out entirely. Is there a reason you didn't use -mcpu=power3 and -mcpu=rs64 for those to CPU options? - k