On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:59:13AM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Ash,
>
> > Perhaps a future version of GCC will have this changed.
> >
> > Keep them as they are, whether they are aliases (at this point) or not
> > is irrelevant. If GCC has them as targets they should be used.
>
> Resources
Hi Jo,
Agreed. I didn't have the limited resources on mind when I wrote that.
Was brought to my attention on IRC.
Cheers.
Regards,
A. Benz
On 08/22/16 15:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
Hi Ash,
Perhaps a future version of GCC will have this changed.
Keep them as they are, whether they are al
Hi Ash,
> Perhaps a future version of GCC will have this changed.
>
> Keep them as they are, whether they are aliases (at this point) or not
> is irrelevant. If GCC has them as targets they should be used.
Resources are precious and IMHO there's no point in building dozens of
gigabytes of identi
> GCC treats 24kc and 34kc exactly the same and will generate identical
> code, so there is no need to tune to 34kc instead of 24kc.
Perhaps a future version of GCC will have this changed.
Keep them as they are, whether they are aliases (at this point) or not
is irrelevant. If GCC has them as t
GCC treats 24kc and 34kc exactly the same and will generate identical
code, so there is no need to tune to 34kc instead of 24kc.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski
---
target/linux/lantiq/xrx200/target.mk | 2 +-
target/linux/lantiq/xway/target.mk| 2 +-
target/linux/lantiq/xway_legacy/tar
