[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] Additional targets for powerpc
From: |
Ian Lance Taylor |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC] Additional targets for powerpc |
Date: |
22 Sep 2005 15:40:07 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 |
Steve Munroe <address@hidden> writes:
> Retain (compatible with all existing Linux on Power systems)
> powerpc (a synonym for powerpc32)
> powerpc32
> powerpc64
> And add
> power4_32
> power4_64
> power5_32
> power5_64
> ppc970_32
> ppc970_64
> Or alternatively
> powerpc32_power4
> powerpc64_power4
> powerpc32_power5
> powerpc64_power5
> powerpc32_970
> powerpc64_970 I see no need to support a separate (from existing
> powerpc32/64) POWER3 and RS64IV targets at this time. The POWER3 systems
> are quite old and the RS64IV systems are "strongly storage consistent"
> machines. The POWER4, POWER5, and PPC970 processors allow "weak storage
> consistency" and are more aggressively piped for out-of-order instruction
> execution. This is difference requires very different instruction
> scheduling for optimal performance.
> Glibc and other package changes
>
> The changes needed to enable additional targets for glibc include:
>
> * Add the new machine targets to ./scripts/config.sub (and in autoconf)
I think we've found with the i386 and, especially, the MIPS, that this
approach is unwieldy and becomes confusing. Have you considered using
the --with-cpu, --with-arch and --with-tune configure options, instead
of adding a slew of CPU names? I don't know much about glibc
configury, but those options suffice for gcc and the binutils.
The main drawback at present is that there is no way to map from
config.guess to --with-cpu. But I believe that is a solvable problem.
(If people need to support compilers with different default targets on
the same system, they can use --program-prefix.)
Ian
Re: [RFC] Additional targets for powerpc, Paul Brook, 2005/09/22
Re: [RFC] Additional targets for powerpc, Kumar Gala, 2005/09/23