On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 02:25 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > > While I agree that I'd like a better approach (specifically, I want any > > Sparse > > build to support any target arch), I don't yet have a solution for that, and > > this patch does at least seem like an improvement over the current hardcoded > > values. > > That's my desire as well: My ideal sparse backend should be able to > compile x86, x86-64, ppc64, ia64, arm, etc. with just a change of > command line switches.
That would probably mean having some runtime-loadable files describing the architectures, as you would not want to describe the architecture with several switches. Perhaps some machine options could be described in those files, namely whether they are acceptable and how they affect the architecture description. > The gcc approach is just bloody awful. Ironically, gcc specfiles do something like that. Of course, they are not sufficient to actually _compile_ the code, but they may be sufficient to verify that code. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
