Re: [linuxsh-dev] Re: Floating point problem

[M. R. B. <mr...@0x...>]

* kaz Kojima <kk...@rr...> on Tue, Aug 14, 2001:

> 
> I'd like to report again about the status of gcc.
> GCC-3.0 seems to be fairly stable and almost essential compiler patches
> are sent to the GCC mailing list.  Some of them are reviewed already
> and some patches waiting to review. You can see our 3.0 patch is still
> big. Almost of them are the configury patches for the non-multilib
> configurations such sh3-unknown-linux-gnu. Niibe-san sent it to the GCC
> mailing list already. This part was the target of arguments, repeatedly.
> We tried first to fix config.sub which is the root of such configury,
> but many people usually think that four (i.e. sh[34](eb)) is "too many".
> The change of config.sub is approved and the argument is continued about
> the configury problem in GCC mailing list.
> 

Well, I've been working on my own solution to this problem, but I'm afraid
I agree with the others for sh-unknown-linux-gnu, and the removal of
multilib for the Linux target.  My fix consists of some new config.sub
targets, but not of the "eb,el" variety since that wouldn't allow you to do
sh3e* as it would conflict with sh3el or sh3eb.

Also, I've made some changes to sh.h to try to enable the "sh[1-4][bl]e" to
work on all sh targets, not just Linux.  I'll try to clean up what I have
and send it here for review.

Nahh, I don't think that's too many, have you seen the entries for ARM and
MIPS (not to mention ix86)?  Ugh.

> There are some ad hoc ones in our 3.0 patch, which will be never sent
> main stream. They are not the Right Thing or solved by the complete
> other way in 3.1. The former cases are wired. For example, some correct
> SH specific part added in 3.0 are reverted. This is totally wrong, but
> if not to do so, gcc-3.0 stage 3 compiler will die. Such part is correct
> itself but reveals the another dark problem. Unfortunately, I couldn't
> even make an appropriate testcase.
> Anyways, I don't think gcc-3.0 is more stable than 20001120 version or
> Abe-san's version.
> Yes, gcc-3.x has many attractive features, but don't forget it isn't so
> stable even for x86.
> 

Wow, thanks for the info, I've been using the patches on your page for
awhile, but never really knew the reasons/motivation for them.

M. R.