https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Ah, ancient issue is ancient:
Here it starts: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-07/msg01851.html
Still, I think Segher has a point in comment #4. Why not just enable all the
multilibs for any configuration? At l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
At least for sh4, it would have a historical reason. In the old
time, -m4-nofpu confused many users (including me). From its name,
those users expected th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I configured for sh4-linux, foolishly thinking that sh4-nofpu would
work with that as well. Why not build all "regular" multilibs for
every "regular" config? Maybe keep sh5, sh2a separate, I dunno (I
n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
> and a patch from somewhere else that seems related:
>
> http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded/plain/recipes/gcc/gcc-4.5/sh4-
> multilib.patch
Perhaps I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iwamatsu at nigauri dot org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
> Kaz, do you have any idea why these SUPPORT_SH* macros are needed? Why
> isn't just every CPU/FPU type marked as supported?
I have no idea for those macros. Some
