Hi Joerg, On 9/5/2012 12:25 AM, Joerg Wunsch wrote: >> I am trying to introduce a new series for Tiny core. As I see 0xx >> series is used for Mega and 1xx series is used for XMega now. If I >> have to have 200 series for Tiny, I need to move the >> EF_AVR_LINKRELAX_PREPARED to a different position. > >> I know this will cause binary incompatibility with older versions, >> But I propose that we move this to 31st bit (e_flags is of type >> ELF32_Word). > > Well, binary incompatibility is always bad, so I would avoid it.
I agree. > Given that only very few "arch" numbers are actually used only so far, > I don't think sacrificing bit 7 is really necessary. How about > placing the arch numbers for the tiny core series somewhere below the > Xmega numbers? If I'm not mistaken, so far we have > > 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 > 25, 31, 35, 51 (which are derivatives of the former) > 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 > > As it is unlikely the old core will get any further development > (beyond the 6), the number space above 69 is certainly not going to be > used, ever. So assigning the number space 8x/9x to the tiny core(s) > should be safe. I thought about using 9x but then I had an impression that 0xx series is reserved for Mega! This sounds good to me. While we are on this topic, I was wondering if we should also introduce a bit in e_flags for -mshort-enums and add a compatibility check. Comments? Regards VP _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
