On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:19 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> Hello Joel, > > it is in line what GCC prints: > > riscv-rtems5-gcc -print-multi-lib > .; > rv32i/ilp32;@march=rv32i@mabi=ilp32 > rv32im/ilp32;@march=rv32im@mabi=ilp32 > rv32imafd/ilp32d;@march=rv32imafd@mabi=ilp32d > rv32iac/ilp32;@march=rv32iac@mabi=ilp32 > rv32imac/ilp32;@march=rv32imac@mabi=ilp32 > rv32imafc/ilp32f;@march=rv32imafc@mabi=ilp32f > rv64imafd/lp64d;@march=rv64imafd@mabi=lp64d > rv64imafd/lp64d/medany;@march=rv64imafd@mabi=lp64d@mcmodel=medany > rv64imac/lp64;@march=rv64imac@mabi=lp64 > rv64imac/lp64/medany;@march=rv64imac@mabi=lp64@mcmodel=medany > rv64imafdc/lp64d;@march=rv64imafdc@mabi=lp64d > rv64imafdc/lp64d/medany;@march=rv64imafdc@mabi=lp64d@mcmodel=medany > Ahh .. that explains where it came from. I realized what it was as soon as I saw that the formatting was intentional. > > I don't mind to change it, but it should be consistent with ARM. > I assumed it was repeated somewhere else. I understand the "." is the top of the lib directory but honestly looking at that output confused me. That can't be a good indication that it is going to be meaningful for someone not familiar with multilibs. Was my suggestion clearer? * default (.): XXX And this follow up discussion makes me wonder if there should be some generic discussion of multilibs in the porting advice. Adding new CPU model variants, optimizations, etc. can result in tinkering. Plus RTEMS tool variants tend to deviate a bit from the generic *-elf tools. --joel > -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > PGP : Public key available on request. > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
