This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: forgotten embedded powerpc 3.1 2 line patch
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- To: joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 22:49:14 +0200
- Subject: Re: forgotten embedded powerpc 3.1 2 line patch
- References: <3055655571.1020962904@VAIO1> <3CDADA07.FC024DEA@OARcorp.com>
On Thursday 09 May 2002 22:20, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > --On Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:25 AM -0500 Joel Sherrill
> >
> > <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Getting this small patch merged into the 3.1 branch has been missed.
> > > This patch is required because binutils 2.12 wants a different CPU
> > > argument for the PPC403 and 405 CPUs. I recall discussing this on
> > > the lists but apparently didn't get the patch submitted. :(
I couldn't find anything on the lists?
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, this appears to need to be in the mainline
> > > and 3.1 branch. Sorry.
> > >
> > > Mark.. can it squeak into the official 3.1?
> >
> > You can check this one, since it was already approved and since it is
> > so simple. But that was a very narrow squeak. :-)
Who approved it? I couldn't find anything either.
> I know. I was doing last minute testing with a fresh tree
> when I spotted it.
And it looks wrong to me, didn't you want to change ASM_CPU_SPEC? And if you
really meant CPP_CPU_SPEC, wouldn't it be better to use -march=? Didn't we
deprecate stuff like -m405?
Franz.