Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:56:36PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:16:04AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
1. For a bi-arch compiler for which 32-bit code is the default, we no
longer need to override ASM_SPEC.
Well, this is the only way this patch applies, because...
2. We get earlier failure and better error messages from the assembler
if the user tries to use a 64-bit compiler with a 32-bit assembler.
... this one isn't true. You won't get "--64" emitted from just
"gcc z.c", only from "gcc -m64 z.c". Unless I'm missing something?
Right, I assume Mark meant "if you try to use foo-gcc -m64 with a
32-bit assembler".
Right.
That said, I guess I don't have a problem with this patch.
How would you feel about a patch that made us always pass --64
as appropriate, at least if the assembler in question is gas? I
periodically bootstrap on a 64-bit kernel with a 32-bit root FS. But
the assembler and linker are biarch, and the 64-bit libs are installed,
so it's just the defaults that are wrong. If we were explicit, an
x86_64-linux compiler would Just Work.
Which would be nice since that's what config.guess says to build :-)
I checked in the version RTH originally approved, after testing on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
I would be in favor of making the mode always explicit, as you suggest
-- but I would prefer that we not embed the assumption that the default
mode is 64-bit mode in x86-64.h so that we can continue to use that file
for 32-bit default compilers. (Perhaps it could go in biarch64.h, which
assumes 64-bit mode to be the default already?) Or, at least, make it
easy for a 32-bit default to override x86-64.h.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
