This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: why do we need xtensa-config.h?
- From: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc at gmail dot com>
- To: Oleksij Rempel <linux at rempel-privat dot de>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd dot org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 00:28:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: why do we need xtensa-config.h?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Oleksij Rempel <email@example.com> wrote:
> i'm one of ath9k-htc-firmware developers. Currently i'm looking for the
> way to provide this firmware as opensource/free package for debian. Main
> problem seems to be the need to patch gcc xtensa-config.h to make it
> suitable for our CPU.
> I have fallowing questions:
> do we really need this patch?
Yes, these changes are needed, but perhaps not in a form of a patch.
The changed file is a part of the configuration overlay that need to be
applied to binutils, gcc and gdb in order to configure them to generate
code for the specific xtensa core.
We have xtensa support in the crosstool-NG and the Buildroot, both
of which can generate xtensa toolchain using configuration overlay.
Please refer to
for more information about xtensa configuration overlay and its usage
by crosstool-NG and Buildroot.
> Is it possible or welcome to extend gcc to be configurable without
> patching it all the time?
It is definitely welcome and is likely possible.
Please do not forget that both gcc and binutils need to have coherent idea
of the processor they're generating code for.