What about sparcv9-linux as target for configure?

What about sparcv9-linux as target for configure?

[Christian Jönsson]

I just tried building gcc+binutils trunk with target sparcv9-linux but
configuer bombs out with diagnostics that it's not a supported target.

Is this what I shoud expect or might I have something else strange
going on?


This was on a Aurora SPARC Linux 0.32 build (Nashville) Ultra1
sun4u system with these packages:

binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11sparc
dejagnu-1.4.2-6 (from rawhide)
gcc-2.96-111
glibc-2.2.5-36
kernel-smp-2.4.18-0.998sparc

Re: What about sparcv9-linux as target for configure?

[Robert Schiele]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:55:34AM +0200, Christian Jönsson wrote:
> I just tried building gcc+binutils trunk with target sparcv9-linux but
> configuer bombs out with diagnostics that it's not a supported target.
> 
> Is this what I shoud expect or might I have something else strange
> going on?

This is what you should expect. sparcv9 is called sparc64 on linux.

> This was on a Aurora SPARC Linux 0.32 build (Nashville) Ultra1
> sun4u system with these packages:
> 
> binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11sparc
> dejagnu-1.4.2-6 (from rawhide)
> gcc-2.96-111
> glibc-2.2.5-36
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note that you need 64 bit glibc to build a 64 bit compiler!

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele			Tel.: +49-621-181-2517
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker	mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 524 bytes --]

OT: sparc, sparcv9, & sparc64 [Was: What about sparcv9-linux as target for configure?]

[Christian Jönsson]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 06:50:48PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:55:34AM +0200, Christian Jönsson wrote:
> > I just tried building gcc+binutils trunk with target sparcv9-linux but
> > configuer bombs out with diagnostics that it's not a supported target.
> > 
> > Is this what I shoud expect or might I have something else strange
> > going on?
> 
> This is what you should expect. sparcv9 is called sparc64 on linux.

uhm, I'm actually a bit confused here... as I understand it, and right
now it seems I understand this wrong, is that 'sparc' is the same as
sparcv7 actually with for example sun4c (any more?). now, there would
naturally be a sparcv8 also perhaps (like sun4d and sun4m) and there
is the sparcv9 like the sun4u. Now, where does sparc64 come in? are we
saying sparc64 *is* sparcv9? nah... then sparc32 would be sun4{c,d,m},
right?

and, looking at how redhat/rawhide/aurora sets it's compier options:

optflags: sparc -O2 -m32 -mtune=ultrasparc
optflags: sparcv9 -O2 -m32 -mcpu=ultrasparc
optflags: sparc64 -O2 -m64 -mcpu=ultrasparc

I'd say sparc64 and sparcv9 is not the same...

and btw aurora's suggestion to have

optflags: sparcv8 -O2 -m32 -mcpu=v8 -mtune=ultrasparc

is perhaps coming also (mainly for multiplication heavy stuff like
openssl and glibc or rather libm there).
 
> > This was on a Aurora SPARC Linux 0.32 build (Nashville) Ultra1
> > sun4u system with these packages:
> > 
> > binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11sparc
> > dejagnu-1.4.2-6 (from rawhide)
> > gcc-2.96-111
> > glibc-2.2.5-36
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Note that you need 64 bit glibc to build a 64 bit compiler!

right sorry, there is of course... glibc64-2.2.5-36 also installed...

Cheers,

/ChJ

Re: OT: sparc, sparcv9, & sparc64 [Was: What about sparcv9-linux as target for configure?]

[Robert Schiele]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2041 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 07:33:29PM +0200, Christian Jönsson wrote:
> uhm, I'm actually a bit confused here... as I understand it, and right
> now it seems I understand this wrong, is that 'sparc' is the same as
> sparcv7 actually with for example sun4c (any more?). now, there would
> naturally be a sparcv8 also perhaps (like sun4d and sun4m) and there
> is the sparcv9 like the sun4u. Now, where does sparc64 come in? are we
> saying sparc64 *is* sparcv9? nah... then sparc32 would be sun4{c,d,m},
> right?
> 
> and, looking at how redhat/rawhide/aurora sets it's compier options:
> 
> optflags: sparc -O2 -m32 -mtune=ultrasparc
> optflags: sparcv9 -O2 -m32 -mcpu=ultrasparc
> optflags: sparc64 -O2 -m64 -mcpu=ultrasparc
> 
> I'd say sparc64 and sparcv9 is not the same...
> 
> and btw aurora's suggestion to have
> 
> optflags: sparcv8 -O2 -m32 -mcpu=v8 -mtune=ultrasparc
> 
> is perhaps coming also (mainly for multiplication heavy stuff like
> openssl and glibc or rather libm there).

I know that this is not consistent in all places.  I also know that
rpm uses these aliases vor compiler setup.  But I also know---and you
should consider that---that within Solaris a 64 bit compiler is built,
when you configure with sparcv9.  There was a discussion about
changing this to 32 bit on this list once.  It was even changed for a
short period of time.  But finally a decision was made to put this
back to 64 bit.

And a fact is that only gcc for Solaris accepts sparcv9, where this is
the same as sparc64.

So you have multiple options:

- You could whine about the current situation.

- You could improve it by providing a patch that implements a better
  commonly accepted solution.

- You could be pragmatic and just configure with sparc64 if you want a
  64 bit compiler and build with just sparc for a 32 bit compiler and
  setup the optimization with -mcpu=ultrasparc.

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele			Tel.: +49-621-181-2517
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker	mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 524 bytes --]

RE: OT: sparc, sparcv9, & sparc64 [Was: What about sparcv9-linux as target for configure?]

[Christian Jönsson]

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to whine, thank you for your
clarification.

Cheers,

/ChJ

-----Original Message-----
From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Robert Schiele
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 9:29 PM
To: gcc
Subject: Re: OT: sparc, sparcv9, & sparc64 [Was: What about
sparcv9-linux as target for configure?]


On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 07:33:29PM +0200, Christian Jönsson wrote:
> uhm, I'm actually a bit confused here... as I understand it, and right

> now it seems I understand this wrong, is that 'sparc' is the same as 
> sparcv7 actually with for example sun4c (any more?). now, there would 
> naturally be a sparcv8 also perhaps (like sun4d and sun4m) and there 
> is the sparcv9 like the sun4u. Now, where does sparc64 come in? are we

> saying sparc64 *is* sparcv9? nah... then sparc32 would be sun4{c,d,m},

> right?
> 
> and, looking at how redhat/rawhide/aurora sets it's compier options:
> 
> optflags: sparc -O2 -m32 -mtune=ultrasparc
> optflags: sparcv9 -O2 -m32 -mcpu=ultrasparc
> optflags: sparc64 -O2 -m64 -mcpu=ultrasparc
> 
> I'd say sparc64 and sparcv9 is not the same...
> 
> and btw aurora's suggestion to have
> 
> optflags: sparcv8 -O2 -m32 -mcpu=v8 -mtune=ultrasparc
> 
> is perhaps coming also (mainly for multiplication heavy stuff like 
> openssl and glibc or rather libm there).

I know that this is not consistent in all places.  I also know that rpm
uses these aliases vor compiler setup.  But I also know---and you should
consider that---that within Solaris a 64 bit compiler is built, when you
configure with sparcv9.  There was a discussion about changing this to
32 bit on this list once.  It was even changed for a short period of
time.  But finally a decision was made to put this back to 64 bit.

And a fact is that only gcc for Solaris accepts sparcv9, where this is
the same as sparc64.

So you have multiple options:

- You could whine about the current situation.

- You could improve it by providing a patch that implements a better
  commonly accepted solution.

- You could be pragmatic and just configure with sparc64 if you want a
  64 bit compiler and build with just sparc for a 32 bit compiler and
  setup the optimization with -mcpu=ultrasparc.

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele			Tel.: +49-621-181-2517
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker	mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de