From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76950DDF4E for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:46:30 +1000 (EST) From: Arnd Bergmann To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: Please pull from 'for_paulus' branch Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:45:53 +0200 References: <18052.42546.78964.805791@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <18052.42546.78964.805791@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200706291545.53890.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 29 June 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote: > It turns out that with Arnd's patches we now get "-mcpu=3Dpowerpc64" 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. =A0That's > presumably a gcc bug, but we'll have to work around it. =A0I think the > best thing is just to not put the -mcpu=3Dpowerpc64 in CFLAGS when no > specific CPU is selected. I can't reproduce the problem here unfortunately. My idea was to always pass _some_ -mcpu=3D flag, in order to make sure it does not use an inappropriate default, e.g. when the compiler is built for a default for power4 but you actually want to build a power3 kernel. Would it work reliably if we switch the arguments to '-mcpu=3Dpowerpc64 -m64' instead of '-m64 -mcpu=3Dpowerpc64'? That might be better than taking it out entirely. Arnd <><