Re: Canadian SDK support

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 07-12-08 22:40, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>  wrote:
>> On 07-12-08 21:11, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 09:00:47PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> On 07-12-08 20:33, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As an aside, gcc-cross-sdk on arm(v6 only?) is blowing up in fortran,
>>>>> but I've got a git bisect narrowing that down now (30 revs left).
>>>> gcc-cross-sdk picks the wrong patch (from files/gfortran.patch) instead
>>>> of the correct one from gcc-4.2.4/gfortran.patch. gcc-cross *does* pick
>>>> the right patch.
>>> For gcc-4.2.4.inc would it be OK to rename gfortran.patch to
>>> gfortran-4.2.4.patch and fix this problem?
>> If 4.2.4 is the only using it (which I doubt), that would be the way to go.
>> IIRC all gcc 4.2 variants (so also the dreaded csl 2007qX ones) need the one
>> with '64', the 4.3.x ones (including csl 2008qX) need the one with '65'.
>
> Why do we need these two. 65 one sounds worng to me from first look.

It is wrong in a way that it check for a 128bit cpu, but I can confirm 
that running compiled fortran programs works very well with it. Using 
the 'correct' version with '64' would cause a regression, which is not 
what we want.

regards,

Koen

regards,

Koen