On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:49 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> #undef LINK_SPEC
>> #define LINK_SPEC "%{" SPEC_64 ":-m " GNU_USER_LINK_EMULATION64 "} \
>> %{" SPEC_32 ":-m " GNU_USER_LINK_EMULATION32 "} \
>> + %{" SPEC_X32 ":-m " GNU_USER_LINK_EMULATIONX32 "} \
>> %{shared:-shared} \
>> %{!shared: \
>> %{!static: \
>> %{rdynamic:-export-dynamic} \
>> %{" SPEC_32 ":-dynamic-linker " GNU_USER_DYNAMIC_LINKER32 "} \
>> - %{" SPEC_64 ":-dynamic-linker " GNU_USER_DYNAMIC_LINKER64 "}} \
>> + %{" SPEC_64 ":-dynamic-linker " GNU_USER_DYNAMIC_LINKER64 "} \
>> + %{" SPEC_X32 ":-dynamic-linker " GNU_USER_DYNAMIC_LINKERX32 "}} \
>> %{static:-static}}"
>>
>> On the border of bikesheding, GNU_USER_LINK_EMULATION64_X32 and
>> GNU_USER_DYNAMIC_LINKER64_X32 sounds better to me.
>>
>> Same with the below:
>>
>> +#define GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKERX32 "/libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.2"
>> +#define UCLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKERX32 "/lib/ldx32-uClibc.so.0"
>> +#define BIONIC_DYNAMIC_LINKERX32 "/system/bin/linkerx32"
>>
>> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/t-linux-x32
>>
>> Please rename above file to t-linux64-x32.
>
> X32 is the name of the psABI:
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>
> We have -mx32, -m32 and -m64 command line options and
> There are macros like TARGET_X32. I'd like to be consistent
> and avoid "64" when referring to x32 if possible. But I won't
> insist. Please let me know that you really won't like x32 without
> 64.
I would like to point out that the base target is in fact 64 bit and a
subtarget is x32, so ...64-x32. I could read this as 64bit target with
x32 ABI. Perhaps we will have 64-xxx or whatever different ABIs that
all apply to the same 64bit hardware.
These are my personal preferences, so I will leave the final decision
about names of defines and file names to you.
Thanks,
Uros.
