On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Christian Svensson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Jeremy Bennett > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the info. This seems a compelling reason to just have or1k > > and dropping or1knd. > > > I don't agree. You would have to explicitly do something like > ./configure --target=or1k-linux CFLAGS='-mno-delay' for every package > you would build. > I think having a compiler with sensible defaults is the way to go. If > you're developing for a or1k variant without delay slots the default > output wouldn't even run. > This. There would be no way to have a native gcc that compiles correct code without any flags, which could potentially break a lot of things. Also, using or1knd is consistent with the practice used by other architectures with incompatible variants, e.g. armhf for the ARM variant used in the Raspberry Pi. And I know there's no core available to run or1knd code yet, but I've got one coming. A few things left to finish and I'll be releasing something :) -Pete
_______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
