This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PA64 configure issues
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Subject: Re: PA64 configure issues
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:11:04 -0600
- cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, autoconf at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <200004251814.OAA28140@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com>you write:
> Geoff gave the background on 64-bit AIX support which can support
> both modes with a single toolchain, defaulting to 32-bit mode. This also
> happens to be the way that the AIX product compilers operate, so the two
> are consistent.
Good.
> The above line in your original message jumps out at me. Are you
> saying that you must build an entirely separate compiler for PA64? Also,
> you did not mention how HP's commercial toolchain operates/defaults.
Yes, we have to build a separate toolchain. Among other things PA32 and PA64
use completely different object file formats (SOM & ELF respectively) one
supports gnu-ld (PA64) the other will never support gnu-ld (PA32). There's
other issues, but those are the two biggest.
HP's tools work by having a front-end which invisibly fires up the appropriate
32bit or 64bit tool based on runtime flags.
> I would agree that defaulting to 32-bit mode, even on 64-bit
> hardware, is the best choice when the hardware can support both modes.
OK.
> If
> the user needs to configure and build a completely separate toolchain for
> 64-bit mode, that is much more cumbersome than the AIX toolchain.
Yup. And that's the root of the problem I'm trying to resolve.
> If HP's
> toolchain defaults differently, I think that you need to consider
> user-interface compatibility as well.
I don't think we're going to have that kind of compatibility. At least not
at this stage.
jeff