From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-19 11:13:10
Boris Gubenko wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> I notice though that we don't have pa-risc in the set of architectures:
>> I can add in "hppa" or "parisc". Or do you prefer something else?
>> Similar question for the instruction-set feature. I can add in
>> "pa-risc-1-0", "pa-risc-1-1", and "pa-risc-2-0". Or do you prefer a
>> different nomenclature?
> Thank you for the proposal! I think, "parisc" as an architecture is fine.
> For now, we can test PA-RISC as not ia64, but what if HP-UX is ported to a
> different architecture? :-)
> As for the instruction-set, I'm not sure how it is used. Why would we need
> "pa-risc-1-0", pa-risc-1-1" and "pa-risc-2-0" instead of a single name?
Hm... Never mind I read the wrong docs in GCC :-( If I'm reading the gcc
docs correctly now, instruction-set would need: 700, 7100, 7100lc, 7200,
7300, and 8000. Which matches the -mschedule option possible values.
> Also, while we are at it: can we define OSPLAT for PA-RISC in jam.h:
> # if defined( __hpux ) && defined( __hppa )
> # define OSPLAT "OSPLAT=PARISC"
> # endif
> If there are no objections, I can make this change in the trunk.
Sure. But why check "__hpux"? Would it not be possible to run a
different OS on a parisc?
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk