On 09/03/14 17:05, Christian Svensson 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. > All sorts of compilers fail to run code if you choose the wrong architecture flags. The various AVR variants are a good example - different chips have different sizes of register, and different ABIs, but they are all avr-gcc.
I believe this is what -march flags are for. I can only recall seeing variant architecture names used for endianness. Some architectures even do that through flags. Might be worth asking for an upstream opinion - ultimately they are the guys who need to accept that or1k and or1knd are two distinct architectures. Best wishes, Jeremy -- Tel: +44 (1590) 610184 Cell: +44 (7970) 676050 SkypeID: jeremybennett Twitter: @jeremypbennett Email: [email protected] Web: www.embecosm.com _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
