On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:03:58PM +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: >Hello All! > >On Monday 25 January 2010 21:49:25 Yann E. MORIN wrote: >> It is not the responsibility of the C library to select what sub-arch >> to generate code for. Rely on the user to: >> - either use a compiler that is configured to generate optimised code >> for the target actual target, >> - or set UCLIBC_EXTRA_CFLAGS with the correct incantation of -march, >> -mcpu, and the likes. > >Due to time contraints, I was unable to completely test this patchset. > >I should be able to re-work on this after FOSDEM, but I'd like your >overal appreciation, most notably on the AVR32 and i386 patches. > >The ARM patch was just forward-ported from my previous submission >back in april, and at the time it was working (which is of course >no indication that it stil does). On the overall, this patch simply >makes the 'Generic ARM' the only option. > >I did not touch other archs, as those 4 are the one I more acquainted >with.
With this approach we will just break e.g. sparc who do not (AFAICS) have means to distinguish their ISAs? Also -mlittle-endian/-ml/-mel/-EL vs. -mbig-endian/-mb/-meb/-EB/ is just stupid. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
