[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: PPC CFLAGS [Was: Re: rpms/openarena/devel openarena.spec, 1.1, 1.2]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 11:02:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > Errm? AFAICT, you must NOT pass -maltivec to cflags, because this
> > > changes code generation and the ABI. 
> > 
> > I think you mean -mabi=altivec
> ??? -maltivec is a macro and comprises many options.
> What -maltivec does in detail is very complicated, much more complicated
> than what most other -m* flags do. Also it has changed several times
> over GCC's history.

Well, we are talking about the present use of -maltivec, or not?

> I.e. the code being generated using it, is not necessarily
> guaranteed to be compatible nor to be runable on those ppc variants
> Fedora/RH supports.

According to the release notes Fedora currently supports G3 upwards,
altivec is guaranteed only G4 upwards. So it looks like there can are
altivec-less system on the support matrix.

Given the choice to drop G3 support or altivec, I'd suggest to drop
G3. But that's not to decide on a package basis, and certainly not
retrospective to a live release.

> From my experience with GCC and altivec (I am co-maintainer of
> powerpc-rtems-gcc), I am expecting it to break things, but I am not
> sufficiently familiar with powerpc-redhat-gcc to be able to judge.

> > > May-be somebody being more familiar with ppc-Fedora than I might
> > > be able to comment.

You seem familiar enough if you maintain a gcc backend ;)
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpQBZtNxxAXw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]