From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-10 14:20:03
On 2002-06-10 at 01:54 PM, gohmandj_at_[hidden] (Dan Gohman) wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:52:35AM -0700, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
>> P.S.: Suggestions:
>> sgi-abi -> irix-abi (there is non-irix sgi hardware)
>> sgi-isa -> irix-isa
>I'm thinking about suggesting something like this:
> feature integer-model : unspecified ilp32 lp64 ; # add others as needed
Good name! It's specific enough that other options that also affect the ABI
on other platforms don't collide :-)
Question, though... What does "ilp" and "lp" stand for?
>to use instead of sgi-abi so that other 64-bit capable platforms can use
>the same feature. For the ISA, I'll probably change sgi-isa to a free
>feature (it doesn't affect link compatability), and maybe mips-isa would
>be a more appropriate name.
Yes, it would be a better name. But see below...
>Do any non-SGI mips platforms use `mips3' and/or `mips4'?
GCC cross-compilation... it also supports mips1 and mips2. Don't know of any
embeded mips devices, but there probably are some.
This does gring up some thoughts... It seems that there should be support
for both link incompatible and link compatible "architecture"/"cpu"
As it stands right now I put CPU types in the architecture feature that
might be link compatible.
So how about sepparating this into:
(I wish that could be "feature instruction-set", but I don't think it will
work as well in the current system)
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk