On 14/12/12 14:49, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 14.12.2012 14:34, schrieb Roland Stigge: >> On 14/12/12 14:10, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> Am 12.12.2012 13:26, schrieb Roland Stigge: >>>> regarding your request to use t-spe, I'm attaching two patches, for the >>>> unstable and experimental versions of gcc-4.7, respectively. >>>> >>>> As written before, in Debian, t-spe wasn't included properly (only on >>>> some bsd variant). So doing it instead of t-linux in the powerpcspe >>>> case, when spe is present. >>> >>> is this wanted, e.g. defining all the MULTILIB macros? >> >> No, not necessary. >> >>> then better add the t-spe bits to the t-linux file. >> >> Fine with that. That's actually what my very first patch did that I >> submitted with this report. So please take it. :-) > > but this one doesn't look for the v1/v0 distinction and uses the same > multiarch > tuple for both. Please bring it in a form which can go upstream.
In your other mail you wrote about tm_file being replaced by tm_file_list. Should I assume that tm_file (which includes e500-double.h by which the distinction of v1 is made) is included into tm_file_list somehow (what I currently can't see), or should we patch src/gcc/config.gcc to include e500-double.h into tm_file_list instead of tm_file? Thanks in advance, Roland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org