From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9446 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2007 09:31:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 9438 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2007 09:31:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk (HELO smtp.nildram.co.uk) (195.112.4.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:31:00 +0000 Received: from firetop.home (84-12-20-70.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [84.12.20.70]) by smtp.nildram.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D722B62B4; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:30:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from richard by firetop.home with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IsxXM-0000wH-Ri; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:30:56 +0000 From: Richard Sandiford To: Thiemo Seufer Mail-Followup-To: Thiemo Seufer ,Paul Koning , joseph@codesourcery.com, binutils@sourceware.org, rsandifo@nildram.co.uk Cc: Paul Koning , joseph@codesourcery.com, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add a GNU attribute for -mips32 -mfp64 objects References: <20071114202400.GT8363@networkno.de> <20071115004530.GU8363@networkno.de> <87k5ojl0il.fsf@firetop.home> <18236.44204.124408.642924@pkoning-laptop.equallogic.com> <87fxz7kzl7.fsf@firetop.home> <20071115231202.GW8363@networkno.de> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20071115231202.GW8363@networkno.de> (Thiemo Seufer's message of "Thu\, 15 Nov 2007 23\:12\:02 +0000") Message-ID: <87k5oiy1tb.fsf@firetop.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2 Thiemo Seufer writes: > Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Paul Koning writes: >> >>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Sandiford writes: >> > >> > Richard> I agree with Joseph here. Although it's redundant to >> > Richard> specify -mfp64 with -msoft-float, it isn't actively wrong. >> > Richard> The options have traditionally been orthogonal. I don't >> > Richard> think the assembler should assume that -mfp64 implies >> > Richard> -mhard-float. >> > >> > It seems strange, since -msoft-float means no float registers, while >> > -mfp64 says there are float registers and they are 64 bits wide. >> >> Well, -mhard-float and -msoft-float are ABI options. -mfp64 is >> an architectural configuration option, and only affects calling >> conventions when combined with -mhard-float. > > But "-mhard-float -mfp64" constitutes a new ABI variant. This is > the case I want to cover. The "-msoft-float -mfp64" should stay > tagged as soft float object. Right. That's why in the other paragraph I agreed that adding a new value to the current enumeration was the right way to go. I just don't think GAS has enough information to generate the enumeration value itself. > And, for completeness, we have "-mips32r2 -mips16 -mhard-float -mfp64", > which tells the compiler to generate different stubs than the ones > needed for the standard hard float. Right. In theory, -mips16 supports all hard-float and soft-float ABI combinations for o32 and o64 (including -msingle-float). Richard