This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patches for coldfire v4e
- From: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie at develer dot com>
- To: arcjai at yahoo dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, peter at the-baradas dot com, Jaiprakash C <cjaiprakash at noida dot hcltech dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:52:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: Patches for coldfire v4e
- References: <20050412104901.56847.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com>
arcjai@yahoo.com wrote:
> Attached are the patches for coldfire v4e. These
> changes are originally contributed by Peter Barada. I
> have migrated and tested these changes from gcc 3.04
> to gcc 3.4 and now to mainline.
Thank you for submitting this patch. I've not yet
had the time to perform a full review. Maybe I'll
be able to do some testing over the week-end.
I noticed a few things:
- In many places code is mis-indented or has
minor white-space glitches;
- You don't seem to consistently patch both MOTOROLA
and !MOTOROLA paths. Is this intentional? AFAIK,
there are no ColdFire targets using the MIT syntax,
but we need to be consistent;
- The patch isn't yet updated to the .opt conversion
that occurred on mainline a few days ago. Changing
it should be trivial;
> Since coldfire v4e has MMU we need to support
> m68k-linux target for coldfire v4e. To support
> m68k-linux for coldfire v4e I need to modify t-linux.
> But I suppose this is not desirable. In that case we
> might have to create another target, maybe
> coldfire-linux. Please give your comments/suggestions
> on this. Is it ok to modify t-linux or coldfire-linux
> should be created.
What are the changes you need to apply?
Would plain 68020 code run on v4e processor? As far
as I can see, m68k-linux isn't a multilib target.
--
// Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/ http://www.develer.com/