This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] target/m68k: multilib issues

On Nov 18, 2010, at 1:50 AM, Finn Thain wrote:

> BTW, on the topic of multilib issues, has anyone managed to build 
> --with-arch=cf --enable-multilib? It doesn't build for me. Is this 
> configuration supported?

Yes, it is supported.  This is how all CodeSourcery's ColdFire toolchains are built.

> 2010-11-17  Finn Thain  <>
> 	* config/m68k/m68k-devices.def (FL_MMU, FL_UCLINUX): Remove.
> 	* gcc/config/m68k/m68k.h (FL_MMU, FL_UCLINUX): Remove.
> 	* config/m68k/t-linux (FL_MMU): Remove.
> 	(M68K_MLIB_CPU): Specify multilibs explicitly. Drop fidoa.
> 	* config/m68k/t-uclinux (FL_MMU, FL_UCLINUX): Remove.
> 	(M68K_MLIB_CPU): Specify multilibs explicitly.

I don't think specifying multilibs explicitly is a good approach for M68K port.  It seems cleaner to annotate the device descriptions with flags specifying which target triplet a particular device supports.

Now, I do agree that the flag names are not very descriptive of their effect, that is due to historic reasons.  "FL_MMU" is equivalent to "supports GNU/Linux", and "!FL_MMU || FL_UCLINUX" is equivalent to "supports uClinux", and bare-metal target is naturally supported for any device.  I think it would be a nice cleanup to transform these into self-descriptive FL_LINUX and FL_UCLINUX flags.


Maxim Kuvyrkov
+1-650-331-3385 x724

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