>>>>> "Nikita" == Nikita V Youshchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nikita> P.S. Another interesting issue is tool naming. How should Nikita> tools be named: i386-linux-gcc or i586-linux-gcc? And when Nikita> comes to multilib, should 'i386-linux-gcc -m64' be the way to Nikita> build for x86_86, or there should be separate Nikita> x86_64-linux-gcc? And what about binutils? Btw, same issue Nikita> exists on s390/s390x and on sparc/sparc64. Looks that a Nikita> consistent way is to make any compiler capable to build for Nikita> every compatable target, but to build by default for the Nikita> target that is in it's name. E.g. i386-linux-gcc by default Nikita> builds core for i386, i686-linux-gcc builds code optimized for Nikita> 686, and x86_64-linux-gcc by default builds for x86_64. But Nikita> all those are several frontends for single compiler binary in Nikita> gcc-lib/, so 'i386-linux-gcc -m64' could be actually the same Nikita> as 'x86_64-linux-gcc'. But I've never seen things done this Nikita> way, so it probably is not easy, and it's not clear whether it Nikita> is worth effort or not. The same problem arises for ARM. gcc can target any of the ARM processors, but fails to be multilib for them, especially wrt big/little endian issues. -- Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au The technical we do immediately, the political takes *forever*
