> > a) apply the workaround to all m68k ports: > > pros: same m68k binaries can be shared > > cons: requires extra performance penalty for all m68k (020/030/040/060) > > > > b) apply the workaround only for XC68LC040 users: > > pros: nothing? (only technical interests of developers?) > > cons: more extra overhead than softfloat binaries
: > Its for the first time in 32 years this has been fixed...... All of these > options were in PR 13078 which I read and reopened and wrote the fix as > proposed in the PR for gas(1). > > Now that this has been fixed it raises the possibility of supporting all m68k > (even buggy XC68LC040) cpus.....AND THATS THE POINT!!! You are ignoring cons of your options. Please ask m68k users first, if it's acceptable or not. --- Izumi TSutsui
