This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
> At Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:56:55 +0000 (UTC), "Thiemo Seufer" wrote:
> > > However, it is much more useful to people creating optimized code to
> > > be able to generate code for specific ISAs,
> > For people who create, maintain and use an whole OS this would
> > be horrible. :-)
> People who create and maintain a whole OS often do so via scripts,
> which allow them to set defaults for things like this.
I referred to "people creating optimized code" and imagined
people == debian package maintainers. :-)
> > > If they're using mipsisa64sb1-linux, they probably expect built-in
> > > support for, say, MIPS-3D, MDMX .ob, and the few SB-1 extensions as
> > > well, regardless of the ABI they choose on the command line.
> > If all of the hardware for this target supports these, ok.
> > But the ISA pre-selection should then be done in the target specific
> > code and not globally.
> I don't know that there's such a thing as "all of the hardware that
> this target supports," really.
Support according to user's expectations. AFAICS your example
"mipsisa64sb1-linux" is defined to support sb1 only.
> Given the flags you can pass to the compiler and assembler, you can
> use the MIPS tools to generate code for any target you want, pretty
Not in all places. See e.g. TE_TMIPS in gas.
> > > I'm wondering if the right thing to do here is have flags like
> > > -mstrict-abi=XXX, which also set the ISA type, or -mabi=strict-XXX...
> > -mabi=isa64sb1-with-many-wonderful-extensions ;-)
> I'd argue that in the case where you specify a -march flag or specify
> a default architecture as part of the target triple, you really want
> "-mabi=X" to mean "X with those extensions which you have implied."
> If you want strict conformance to ABI 'foo' in that situation, you
> want a special flag that says that.
Ok, that's what I meant.