powerpc-rtems-4.7-gcc-4.0 patch commited

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 08:27 -0800, Till Straumann wrote:
> Hi Ralf
> 
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >FYI: I have committed my powerpc RTEMS-gcc multilib patches to GCC's CVS
> >trunk (aka. GCC-4.0).
> >
> >This patch introduces a completely new layout of powerpc multilibs:
> >
> ># powerpc-rtems4.7-gcc --print-multi-lib
> >.;@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
> >m403;@mcpu=403 at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >m505;@mcpu=505 at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >m601;@mcpu=601 at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >m603e;@mcpu=603e at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >m604;@mcpu=604 at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >
> Why do we need a m604 (and possibly more CPU variants)?
There is a BSP in CVS which uses the m604.

>  I thought
> the #ifdefs testing for a CPU type in RTEMS have been cleaned up?
They have been massively cleaned up, but there still remains a lot of
arkwardness :(

> >m860;@mcpu=860 at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >m7400;@mcpu=7400 at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >
> I don't see the altivec options here - I guess --print-multi-lib doesn't 
> show all the active options?
-mcpu=7400 implies -maltivec

-mcpu=7450 is "multlib"-matched to -mcpu=7400, i.e. uses the same
multilibs as -mcpu=7400

> >nof;@msoft-float at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >m601/nof;@mcpu=601 at msoft-float@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
> >m603e/mpc8260;@mcpu=603e at Dmpc8260@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
> >m603e/nof;@mcpu=603e at msoft-float@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
> >m603e/mpc8260/nof;@mcpu=603e at Dmpc8260@msoft-float at mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi at mstrict-align
> >m604/nof;@mcpu=604 at msoft-float@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
> >m7400/nof;@mcpu=7400 at msoft-float@mrelocatable-lib at mno-eabi@mstrict-align
> >
> I definitively don't see the point of having a 604 and 7400 soft float 
> variant.
Convenience - You don't want to/don't need a necessity to test your BSPs
with FPU disabled? I think this is necessary and convenient when
developing BSPs.

Ralf