This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: 32->64 bit cross compilers

To: aoliva at redhat dot com
Subject: Re: 32->64 bit cross compilers
From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:03:36 -0700
Cc: janis at us dot ibm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <orlmoo6c7y.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><20010425115754D.mitchell@codesourcery.com><or66fsxjdt.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>


Yes, this is OK.  Thanks.

What do you suggest doing for the branch?

I think we don't want the CONST_INT sign-extension patches at this
point.

What is required to get us back to 2.95.x behavior?

My recollection was that we originally ran into trouble with some
patches that Kenner checked into libgcc2.  Can we disable those
changes in some ways when doing 32->64 bit crosses?  It is less
important that we get the same code when doing a cross-compile and a
native compile than that we get correct code.  If doing a 32-bit ->
64-bit cross yields slightly different code, or doesn't accept the
complete range of programs accepted natively, we can live with that.

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

References:
- Re: 32->64 bit cross compilers
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: 32->64 bit cross compilers
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: 32->64 bit cross compilers
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]