Re: Two-month patch ping: Re: powerpc*le-linux support

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the fast feedback.

On Aug 22, 2013, at 10:48 PM, Alan Modra <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:34:10PM +0700, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>> How can it be correct to say "-m elf32lppclinux" (32-bit) when $host is
>>> explicitly 64-bit? That seems like utter garbage to me. What am I
>>> missing this time?
> 
> As far as I understand, this piece of libtool is supplying ld options
> when your host compiler defaults to something other than what $host
> implies.  Which sounds very strange, but consider that on a
> powerpc64-linux host your gcc will usually compile to both 32-bit and
> 64-bit objects.  Both 32-bit and 64-bit objects will run on the host,
> and whether gcc produces 32-bit by default (most common a few years
> ago) or 64-bit (most common now), depends on how gcc was configured.
> 
> So if $host is powerpc64-linux and $CC is gcc and gcc produces 64-bit
> by default, and $LD is powerpc64-linux-ld then no ld options are
> needed.  When generating 32-bit libraries on this system, $host is
> powerpc-linux, $CC is still gcc, and $LD may be powerpc-linux-ld.
> That's a problem because $CC with no options produces 64-bit objects
> but $LD with no options is expecting 32-bit.
> 
> This is all somewhat of a guess on my part, but I've seen these $LD
> and $CC selections.  Most configure scripts seem to prefer
> "powerpc64-linux-ld" over plain "ld" when $host is powerpc64-linux,
> and similarly "powerpc-linux-ld" for $host of powerpc-linux.
> 
>> I don't get it either, and I can't test it.

Thanks for the explanation, I finally do get it.  Phew :)

>>  I trust the ppcle community
>> will commence shouting if the patches have done something horrible.
> 
> It's broken.  Please apply exactly the tested patch I submitted, or if
> powerpc-* and similar in the switch statement is somehow the wrong
> style (we've tested for powerpc*-*linux* already!), then make them
> powerpc-*linux*.  Not powerpc*-*linux*, which is exactly the same
> mistake I made with my first patch..

I believe I already fixed it with the most recent amendment committed
under your name (exactly by removing the errant * from the case branch
matches).  Please pull the most recent revision and let me know if I still
didn't fix everything I broke recently.

Cheers,
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail