Re: [jamboost] mipspro-tools.jam file

From: Dan Gohman (gohmandj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-11 16:59:12

On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:43:35PM -0500, Rene Rivera wrote:
> OK, I get it now. In that case I propose this instead...
> 
> feature address-model : default 16 32 64 ;
> 
> This is a more generic term and can later expand to specify other addressing
> models on other CPUs.
> 
> Opinions?

This sounds good to me.

By the way, is there a standard way for a toolset to say that it doesn't
support a particular option? For example, MIPSpro doesn't support a 16-bit
address model.

Dan

-- 
Dan Gohman
gohmandj_at_[hidden]