From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CAED138247 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 22:19:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B21EFE09BE; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 22:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BCA1E09BE for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 22:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 351B733F617 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 22:18:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52C0A007.2000609@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:19:51 -0500 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-mips@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-mips@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-mips@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-mips] Re: On MIPS using the same CHOST for all multilib ABIs References: <20131228235839.5bb0305a@gentoo.org> <52C096B8.1020302@gentoo.org> <20131229224806.66137df9@gentoo.org> <52C098C8.4000601@gentoo.org> <52C09985.9000709@opensource.dyc.edu> <52C09EA5.6070000@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <52C09EA5.6070000@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 5f294d1f-e8f6-478b-ae64-c507dd8ff271 X-Archives-Hash: 99b87d314b3a3bc07326b9bf14f0e636 On 12/29/2013 05:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 12/29/2013 09:52 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 12/29/2013 04:48 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> On 12/29/2013 09:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>> Dnia 2013-12-29, o godz. 16:40:08 >>>> Joshua Kinard napisał(a): >>>> >>>>> On 12/28/2013 5:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>>>> I've noticed today that mips uses the same CHOST value for all three >>>>>> ABIs it supports: >>>>>> >>>>>> arch/mips/mips64/multilib/make.defaults:CHOST_o32="${CHOST}" >>>>>> arch/mips/mips64/multilib/make.defaults:CHOST_n32=${CHOST} >>>>>> arch/mips/mips64/multilib/make.defaults:CHOST_n64=${CHOST} >>>>>> arch/mips/mipsel/mips64el/multilib/make.defaults:CHOST_o32="${CHOST}" >>>>>> arch/mips/mipsel/mips64el/multilib/make.defaults:CHOST_n32="${CHOST}" >>>>>> arch/mips/mipsel/mips64el/multilib/make.defaults:CHOST_n64="${CHOST}" >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>> Matt can probably vouch for this better, but the only two ABIs >>>>> affected by >>>>> this are n32 and n64. mips[el]-unknown-linux-gnu implies a 32-bit >>>>> big/little endian CHOST, which means the o32 ABI. >>>>> mips64[el]-unknown-linux-gnu means either n32 or n64. So no change >>>>> should >>>>> be needed for o32-based installs. >>>> Just to be clear: >>>> >>>> profiles/arch/mips/mipsel/mips64el/multilib/make.defaults: >>>> >>>> CHOST="mips64el-unknown-linux-gnu" >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> CFLAGS_o32="-mabi=32" >>>> CHOST_o32="${CHOST}" >>>> >>>> CFLAGS_n32="-mabi=n32" >>>> CHOST_n32="${CHOST}" >>>> >>>> CFLAGS_n64="-mabi=64" >>>> CHOST_n64="${CHOST}" >>>> >>>> So in this case, o32 actually uses mips64el-unknown-linux-gnu, unless >>>> I'm missing something. >>>> >>> Yes all 3 ABIs use the same tuple. >>> >> I think people are missing Mike's point from earlier, which is that >> tuples label toolchains and a toolchain can support multiple abis. So >> for example, what would one do on a system which simultaneously has o32, >> n32 and n64? -gnuabi32n32n64 looks pretty crazy. >> > There is only one default ABI, so the toolchain should be named after > that. But that does not mean the toolchain can't build for different ABIs > No because that would confuse a toolchain which only supports n32 with one that supports o32/n32/n64. Anyhow, Michał response is heading in the right direction where we'd have to use multiple tuple on multilib system support more than one lib. I'm still not sure where this will land us with respect to gnuconfig and other tuple parsing tools that bring in their own assumptions. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA