From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1208 invoked by alias); 19 May 2004 15:19:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1201 invoked from network); 19 May 2004 15:19:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO igw2.watson.ibm.com) (129.34.20.6) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 May 2004 15:19:21 -0000 Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [129.34.20.41]) by igw2.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7-20030924/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i4JFJIA252190; Wed, 19 May 2004 11:19:18 -0400 Received: from makai.watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7-20030924/8.11.7/8.11.7-01-14-2004) with ESMTP id i4JFJHJ36466; Wed, 19 May 2004 11:19:17 -0400 Received: from watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by makai.watson.ibm.com (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0/03-06-2002) with ESMTP id i4JFJC227830; Wed, 19 May 2004 11:19:12 -0400 Message-Id: <200405191519.i4JFJC227830@makai.watson.ibm.com> To: Geoff Keating , ksp@securelogix.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, bug-binutils@gnu.org Subject: Re: Powerpc Linux build fails In-Reply-To: Message from Alan Modra of "Wed, 19 May 2004 14:40:40 +0930." <20040519051040.GD12690@bubble.modra.org> References: <3A3FC75F7C72D711A7DC009027AC9C4B1788D9@jupiter> <20040519033008.GC12690@bubble.modra.org> <200405190427.i4J4RYiU027950@desire.geoffk.org> <20040519051040.GD12690@bubble.modra.org> Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:19:00 -0000 From: David Edelsohn X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 >>>>> Alan Modra writes: Alan> Probably true. However, the feedback I'm getting at the moment is that Alan> it's a nasty surprise that the Linux kernel doesn't compile.. The same Alan> goes for current powerpc64 glibc with VMX extensions. Alan, I thought that the intention was for GCC to invoke the assembler with -many until we could utilize .machine to generate the correct directives. Are you proposing that -many will be the assembler default? David