Re: powerpc*le-linux support

[Peter Rosin]

On 2013-08-22 15:25, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:16:04PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> I guess I'm just thoroughly confused, but in my world there ought to
>> be four variations of $host; 64- or 32-bit, and big or little endian.
>>
>> This patch seems to only handle builds going from 64-bit to 32-bit
>> ($host powerpc64-* and 32-bit output) and compiles going from 32-bit
>> to 64-bit ($host powerpc-* and 64-bit output).
>>
>> Both of those cases ought to be cross compiles. But I don't get why you
>> apparently do not need to give any -m option to ld when you cross-compile
>> from 32-bit little-endian to 32-bit big-endian and from 64-bit l-e to
>> 64-bit b-e? Is the user required to provide the appropriate -m option
>> manually in that case? Why is it important to be more helpful for
>> crosses over the 32/64 boundary?
> 
> Yes, we might need to handle those cases too.  I've only just started
> looking into the cross-endian multilib support in gcc..
> 
> As to why the cases I handled are more important:  On a powerpc64le
> linux host where the compiler defaulted to producing 64-bit objects
> (which is how we generally build compilers nowadays) libtool added
> -m elf64ppc to $LD here.  Being the option for 64-bit big-endian, that
> caused complete failure for *native* 64-bit little-endian.  Which is
> where the action is at the moment.

Ah, I see. Thanks!

Cheers,
Peter