On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:56:31 -0300, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote: > Hi Julien, > > On 10/15/2014 05:45 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: > >The 'add ppc64el support' patch seems to make the other one unnecessary, > >since -mminimal-toc is only added for ppc64architecture, which wouldn't > >apply to ppc64el? Am I missing something? > > It happens the patch doesn't disable the ppc64architecture, it just adds > the ppc64el architecture - so if you're in powerpc64 and little endian, > both are defined (see there's no #else in this piece): > Ah, right, I must have been blind...
> + # ifdef __powerpc64__ > ++# ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN__ > ++# ifndef Ppc64elArchitecture > ++# define Ppc64elArchitecture > ++# endif > ++# endif > + # ifndef Ppc64Architecture > + # define Ppc64Architecture > + # endif > > I haven't discussed the patch with its author. Do you believe this point > should be handled differently? (i.e., use an #else) > This way seems to be how mips is handled, so let's leave it as-is. > One thing I had in mind when writing the other patch was trying not to > modify existing stuff, so not to break what used it before, so maybe > that fits here too - ppc64el is also some sort of ppc64, except for > the endianness-dependent pieces. > I wonder if the -mminimal-toc thing is actually needed on BE ppc64. It seems to have been introduced by https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=303 but I don't know why. So if we could just remove that, it seems like it'd be easier all around. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
