This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 01:48:57PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 01:41:07PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > +- sh-*-* | sh[34]-*-*) > > > > ++ sh-*-* | sh[34]-*-* | sh[34]eb-*-*) > > > > > > why not just use sh[34]* ? afaict, the requirement they're going > > > for here is that the cpu be sh3 or sh4. > > > > i don't know enough about the various cores to make that sweeping > > generalization. if you don't think there's a problem, i can re-submit > > to be more general. i was just going for the patch to deal with the > > specific issue *i* was having. > > lets just ask Kaz ;) works for me. i'm off for a couple of hours so if someone wants to submit a revised patch, that's fine. rday NOTE!!!!!! keep in mind that this is not a patch being submitted upstream for inclusion in gcc, it's just for this upcoming version of crosstool, that's all. i've already submitted a bugzilla report for this and i *fully* expect someone else who knows more about this than i do to properly patch gcc, whenever they get around to it. but if there's an *obviously* better solution than the one i posted, go wild. i'm not territorial. ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |