On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 05:01, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch of
>
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git
> for_paulus
>
> Sorry I wasn't able to get this pull request out before -rc1 got
> released,
>
Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for_paulus
Updated with Ben's request change to the indirect runtime patch and
dropped the i8259/mpic patch for now.
to receive the following updates:
arch/
Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for_paulus
Sorry I wasn't able to get this pull request out before -rc1 got released,
but had some issues w/accessing email/accounts this weekend.
to receive the fo
Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for_paulus
to receive the following updates:
Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt | 32 ++
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8272ads.dts | 42 +--
arch/powerp
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:57:48PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Andreas Schwab writes:
>
> > The assembler should be called with -a64, which has the effect of
> > defaulting to -mppc64.
>
> Yes, the assembler is called with -a64, but that doesn't appear to
> have the effect of defaulting to -mp
Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab writes:
>
>> Is your assembler older than 4 years?
>
> No, well, at least not unless Debian sid is seriously behind the
> times. It's version 2.17 from the Debian binutils 2.17-3 package.
Probably some debian patches messed it up. I'd
Andreas Schwab writes:
> Is your assembler older than 4 years?
No, well, at least not unless Debian sid is seriously behind the
times. It's version 2.17 from the Debian binutils 2.17-3 package.
Paul.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.o
Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab writes:
>
>> The assembler should be called with -a64, which has the effect of
>> defaulting to -mppc64.
>
> Yes, the assembler is called with -a64, but that doesn't appear to
> have the effect of defaulting to -mppc64.
Is your assembler
Andreas Schwab writes:
> The assembler should be called with -a64, which has the effect of
> defaulting to -mppc64.
Yes, the assembler is called with -a64, but that doesn't appear to
have the effect of defaulting to -mppc64.
[Alan: this thread is about the fact that compiling C code with "gcc
-m
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 29 June 2007, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> Would it work reliably if we switch the arguments to
>>> '-mcpu=powerpc64 -m64' instead of '-m64 -mcpu=powerpc64'? That
>>> might be better than taking it out entirely.
>>
>> Is there a reason you d
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 29 June 2007, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> Would it work reliably if we switch the arguments to
>>> '-mcpu=powerpc64 -m64' instead of '-m64 -mcpu=powerpc64'? That
>>> might be better than taking it out entirely.
>>
>> Is there a reason you d
On Friday 29 June 2007, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > Would it work reliably if we switch the arguments to
> > '-mcpu=powerpc64 -m64' instead of '-m64 -mcpu=powerpc64'? That
> > might be better than taking it out entirely.
>
> Is there a reason you didn't use -mcpu=power3 and -mcpu=rs64 for
> those to C
Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It turns out that with Arnd's patches we now get "-mcpu=powerpc64" on
> the command line, and that means that gcc *doesn't* put "-mppc64" the
> as command line, and as barfs on the 64-bit instructions.
The assembler should be called with -a64, which ha
On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 29 June 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> It turns out that with Arnd's patches we now get "-mcpu=powerpc64" on
>> the command line, and that means that gcc *doesn't* put "-mppc64" the
>> as command line, and as barfs on the 64-bit instru
On Friday 29 June 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> It turns out that with Arnd's patches we now get "-mcpu=powerpc64" on
> the command line, and that means that gcc *doesn't* put "-mppc64" the
> as command line, and as barfs on the 64-bit instructions. That's
> presumably a gcc bug, but we'll have to
>> It is not. -mcpu=powerpc64 doesn't select an ABI, and your
>> GCC presumably defaults to the 32-bit ABI. Use -m64 on the
>> GCC command line, too, you need it, and it solves this issue
>> as a side effect.
>
> No, actually the command line had -m64 on it. The situation is this:
>
> gcc -m64 -
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> It is not. -mcpu=powerpc64 doesn't select an ABI, and your
> GCC presumably defaults to the 32-bit ABI. Use -m64 on the
> GCC command line, too, you need it, and it solves this issue
> as a side effect.
No, actually the command line had -m64 on it. The situation is
>> Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch of
>>
>> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git
>> for_paulus
>
> Unfortunately with those commits I get this when compiling for a
> 64-bit target:
>
> {standard input}:
On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:26 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Kumar Gala writes:
>
>> Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch of
>>
>> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git
>> for_paulus
>
> Unfortunately with those commits I
Kumar Gala writes:
> Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch of
>
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for_paulus
Unfortunately with those commits I get this when compiling for a
64-bit target:
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standar
Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for_paulus
to receive the following updates:
arch/powerpc/Kconfig |6
arch/powerpc/Makefile | 19
arch/powerp
21 matches
Mail list logo
