On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:36:13PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> They exist:
> {"code16gcc", set_16bit_gcc_code_flag, CODE_16BIT},
> {"code16", set_code_flag, CODE_16BIT},
> {"code32", set_code_flag, CODE_32BIT},
> {"code64", set_code_flag, CODE_64BIT},
>
> but they only switch ASM encoding,
> Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:17:24PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> Or, if GAS can be told which mode it should be in via directives in
> >> its input (.code32/.code64?), then we could add something like
> >>
> >> fputs (TARGET_64BIT ? "\t.co
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:17:24PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > Or, if GAS can be told which mode it should be in via directives in
> > its input (.code32/.code64?), then we could add something like
> >
> > fputs (TARGET_64BIT ? "\t.code64\n" : "\t.code32",
> > asm_out_file);
> >
>
Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:17:24PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Or, if GAS can be told which mode it should be in via directives in
>> its input (.code32/.code64?), then we could add something like
>>
>> fputs (TARGET_64BIT ? "\t.code64\n" : "\t.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:17:24PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Or, if GAS can be told which mode it should be in via directives in
> its input (.code32/.code64?), then we could add something like
>
> fputs (TARGET_64BIT ? "\t.code64\n" : "\t.code32",
> asm_out_file);
>
> to x86_file_s
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would be in favor of making the mode always explicit, as you suggest
> -- but I would prefer that we not embed the assumption that the
> default mode is 64-bit mode in x86-64.h so that we can continue to use
> that file for 32-bit default compilers. (
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:56:36PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:16:04AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
1. For a bi-arch compiler for which 32-bit code is the default, we no
longer need to override ASM_SPEC.
Well, this is the only way thi
* Daniel Jacobowitz:
> How would you feel about a patch that made us always pass --64
> as appropriate, at least if the assembler in question is gas? I
> periodically bootstrap on a 64-bit kernel with a 32-bit root FS. But
> the assembler and linker are biarch, and the 64-bit libs are installed,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 04:03:15PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> How would you feel about a patch that made us always pass --64
> as appropriate, at least if the assembler in question is gas?
I have no problem with that.
r~
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:56:36PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:16:04AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > 1. For a bi-arch compiler for which 32-bit code is the default, we no
> >longer need to override ASM_SPEC.
>
> Well, this is the only way this patch applies,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:16:04AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 1. For a bi-arch compiler for which 32-bit code is the default, we no
>longer need to override ASM_SPEC.
Well, this is the only way this patch applies, because...
> 2. We get earlier failure and better error messages from the as
This patch makes x86-64.h pass "--64" to the assembler when compiling
in 64-bit mode.
There are several advantages:
1. For a bi-arch compiler for which 32-bit code is the default, we no
longer need to override ASM_SPEC.
2. We get earlier failure and better error messages from the assembler
12 matches
Mail list logo
