Boris Gubenko wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
I notice though that we don't have pa-risc in the set of architectures: [...] I can add in "hppa" or "parisc". Or do you prefer something else? Similar question for the instruction-set feature. I can add in "pa-risc-1-0", "pa-risc-1-1", and "pa-risc-2-0". Or do you prefer a different nomenclature?
Thank you for the proposal! I think, "parisc" as an architecture is fine. For now, we can test PA-RISC as not ia64, but what if HP-UX is ported to a different architecture? :-)
As for the instruction-set, I'm not sure how it is used. Why would we need "pa-risc-1-0", pa-risc-1-1" and "pa-risc-2-0" instead of a single name?
Hm... Never mind I read the wrong docs in GCC :-( If I'm reading the gcc docs correctly now, instruction-set would need: 700, 7100, 7100lc, 7200, 7300, and 8000. Which matches the -mschedule option possible values.
Also, while we are at it: can we define OSPLAT for PA-RISC in jam.h:
# if defined( __hpux ) && defined( __hppa ) # define OSPLAT "OSPLAT=PARISC" # endif
If there are no objections, I can make this change in the trunk.
Sure. But why check "__hpux"? Would it not be possible to run a different OS on a parisc? -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo