RFC: powerpc-rtems multilibs

Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at faw.uni-ulm.de
Thu Apr 4 10:29:31 UTC 2002


Currently, powerpc-rtems-gcc-3-0.4 uses these multilib-variants:

# powerpc-rtems-gcc --print-multi-lib
.;@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
nof;@msoft-float at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
le;@mlittle at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
ca;@mcall-aix at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
und;@fleading-underscore at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
le/und;@mlittle at fleading-underscore@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
nof/le;@msoft-float at mlittle@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
nof/ca;@msoft-float at mcall-aix@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
nof/und;@msoft-float at fleading-underscore@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
nof/le/und;@msoft-float at mlittle@fleading-underscore at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align

My question is: Do these actually give sense for RTEMS or can some of
them be eliminated rsp. shall others be added?

Remember that we can set the conventions/standards to be used by
RTEMS-gcc, so "sticking to some arbitrary defaults", as
powerpc-rtems-gcc currently does, might be worth reconsideration.

AFAIS, currently, only nof (==softfloat) and "default" are used by the
public BSPs. Little endian does not seem to be used, however would give
sense if the ppc-ports support it (AFAIS, they at least claim to do so,
but there doesn't seem to exist a BSP which actually uses it.)

How about "call-aix" and "fleading-underscore"?
I don't know what these actually do, but they don't seem to be used by

I.e. I am in favor of removing the "ca" and "und" multilib variants,
unless there is a technical reason to keep them. This would
significantly reduce the size of powerpc-rtems-gcc and the time required
to build multilibs.

Opinions, comments?


More information about the users mailing list