https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
--- Comment #7 from Tommy Murphy ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #3)
> The Linux and ELF multilibs are different: for Linux we assumed ISA
> compatibility was up to the distro, so multilib just handles the ABI side of
> things. That said,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
--- Comment #6 from Tommy Murphy ---
Hi Kito/Palmer - should I maybe close this issue here and take it up in the
riscv-gnu-toolchain/riscv-gcc repos instead?
* https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gnu-toolchain
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
--- Comment #5 from Tommy Murphy ---
Thanks for the comments Palmer and Kito.
However I'm still a bit confused. Is it the case that the multilib patterns
(for the "base" lib and reuse patterns) are interpreted/used differently in the
context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
--- Comment #4 from Kito Cheng ---
I guess I skip too much detail here, the multilib for linux isn’t really honor
to the reause rule in the multilib config file for a while.
That just control how multilib build, e.g. build ilp32 with which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
--- Comment #2 from Tommy Murphy ---
Thanks @Kito Cheng - but I don't really understand how your comment relates to
the specific issue of the t-linux-multilib reuse "mappings" being incorrect
(and possibly the reverse of what was originally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|og13 (devel/omp/gcc-13) |14.0
CC|
