This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi Kazu, > > > Good idea, but I think also will be good, mark 26xx subtarget as > > new bfd-target too. > > I am basically for having a subtarget for each combination of > instruction set and mode. However, if we have .h2600 or something, > then we should probably have "upward compatibility" thing built into > the linker so that we can mix H8S/2600 code with H8S or H8/300H. I don't think it will be a big problem, cause we told about change numeration of bfd-subtargets, so why not take such numbers, wich will be "upward compatible" (simly set high bit, I think)? > This way, we don't have to have separate libgcc.a and lib[mc].a, etc, for > H8S/2600 because the difference of instruction sets between H8S and > H8S/200 is only mac-related instructions. At present you are right, but: 1) what about using MAC in lib[mc], in future releases of newlib? 2) what about interrupt frames in library routines? Regards, Andrey
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |