On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 19:29:29 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Guillem Jover | 2010-02-16 15:22:55 [+0100]: > > > Besides spe as addition to the gnu name there is eabi (armel) and lp > > > (lpia). Based on this I come up with powerpcgspe. I added a g there > > > because ps3 & cell blades are powerpcs and have spe units. This should > > avoid confusion. > > > > Sorry, don't understand the reason for the g, could you elaborate?
> I assumed that powerpcspe could lead to confusion with the SPE/SPU CPUs > which can be found on cell blades and PS3. The 'g' comes from gnuspe, > the last part in th gcc tripplet. Yesterday did some superficial research, and I might have missunderstood stuff, but isn't the SPE in the E500 the same as the one on the Cells? Also from reading some mails from the libc-alpha [0] list when the port was upstreamed, it seems that it might be possible to mix code built for powerpc SPE and for other powerpc features? So is it really necessary to build a whole port for this, isn't it possible to build specific libraries using the hwcap infrastructure instead, or do the objects built actually have a different ELF ABI and the objects would refuse to be linked together (like in the ARM case before the EABI)? I don't want to seem like I'm blocking the inclusion of this, just want to make sure there's been thoughts on all this stuff, as creating a new architecture involves lots of work, and more so if it might seek official inclusion in Debian. When there might be an easier way to handle this specific need. > Do you thing it causing more trouble than good? Well it's not much trouble, it's actually more of a stylistic thing, but the same way I wondered other people might too, if it's there for a reason, fine, otherwise we don't really need to add it. > > Another possibility could be ppc(g)spe, matching the ppc64 > > architecture, but it might be better to be closer to the 32 bits one. > Why do we want matching the ppc64 arch? The CPUs support only 32bit. > ppc(g)spe makes the name smaller which might be handy. We don't need to match it, it's just that as there's currently only two ppc ports with different basenames, so there's no consistency to align to, and arguably we could choose the one we prefer, I'd say. thanks, guillem [0] <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2007-10/msg00002.html> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
