On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:23, Greg Ungerer <g...@snapgear.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/11 18:06, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Geert Uytterhoeven<ge...@linux-m68k.org> writes:
>>
>>> What exactly do you mean by "does not support anything less"? It seems it
>>> does
>>> restrict instruction generation to 68000 if you ask for it.
>>
>> The point is that Linux/m68k requires 68020+, so compiling for 68000
>> does not make sense (at least back when the gcc configuration was
>> created).
>
> Yeah, used to be true :-)
> This seems very much to me to be a "broken compiler" issue.
>
> Is it worth putting some form of compiler version limits to protect
> compilation in the m68000 case? (Probably no need to limit it for
> the existing 68020+ case).
>
> Are there any other gcc defines that we could use instead?
> We need to check with your old compiler Geert :-)
>
> I really don't want to use CONFIG_MMU here (or in bitops.h either).
> When I work in the ColdFire MMU code this won't be right.
I was more thinking along the lines of !CONFIG_M68000 && !CONFIG_M68010
&& !CONFIG_<whatever Coldfire that doesn't support it>.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
