This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: More i386 architectures?
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 12:01:29AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> Any suggestions or a preference?
My real preference is for someone else to write/design this, but here
are my ideas. :)
Keep the number of bfd_arch_info_type entries down to a minimum, and
extend the disassembler -M option to accept all strings that might be
emitted in one of these notes. Then introduce a new function that
returns available -M strings (for help info) if presented with a NULL
arg, or validates a non-NULL arg.
> >> If the user specifies an option something like -mi8066, does that also
> >> set cpu_arch_name and hence select the architecture?
> >
> >
> > No. Most current assembly won't even emit the note as you only get it
> > if the source has a .arch directive.
>
> Ok. Do you think that behavour makes sense - -m<arch> on the command
> line being roughly equivalent to an explicit ``.arch <arch>'' on ``line
> 0'' and hence emitting a note?
That would be reasonable, except that x86 gas doesn't accept "-m<arch>".
Trivial to change, but we might get some complaints from people who
currently use "-m" as a valid abbreviation for "--mri".
Alan