This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] m68000 ELF + two m68k gas fixes
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 04:47:39PM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:59:34AM -0800, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 08:34:49AM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> >
> > > -m68881 | -m68882 | -mno-68881 | -mno-68882\n\
> > > target has/lacks floating-point coprocessor\n\
> > > ! [default yes for 68020, 68030, and cpu32]\n"));
> >
> > for what it's worth, I've always found this wording pretty ambiguous.
> > "has/lacks" and "yes" don't seem to match up. perhaps
> > [default lacks for 68020, 68030, and cpu32] would be more clear?
>
> Except if you look at the code, it's "default has for 68020, 68030,
> and cpu32". :-)
eh? I've been compiling with -mcpu32 for m68k-rtems since 2.95.2 and
never gotten floating point opcodes out of it. however, -m68020 and
-m68030 ARE emitting floating point opcodes:
$ m68k-rtems-gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/cross/lib/gcc-lib/m68k-rtems/3.1/specs
Configured with:
Thread model: single
gcc version 3.1 20020131 (experimental)
$ cat float.c
double floatfunction(double foo, double bar) {
return foo / bar;
}
$ m68k-rtems-gcc -mcpu32 float.c -c
$ m68k-rtems-nm float.o
U __divdf3
00000000 T floatfunction
$ m68k-rtems-gcc -m68020 float.c -c
$ m68k-rtems-nm float.o
00000000 T floatfunction
$ m68k-rtems-gcc -m68030 float.c -c
$ m68k-rtems-nm float.o
00000000 T floatfunction
now do you see why I'm confused?
> I'm actually inclined to leave this part alone, since it doesn't
> really have anything to do with what this patch is trying to achieve.
looks like something needs to be updated... "the behaviour observed
differs from the documentation."
--
Aaron J. Grier | Frye Electronics, Tigard, OR | aaron@frye.com
"In a few thousand years people will be scratching their heads
wondering how on earth the first computer was invented and
bootstrapped without a prior computer to do it with."
-- Chris Malcolm, on comp.arch