On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:32:52AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Tom Rini wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 03:30:47AM +0200, Stef Simoens wrote:

quoted

Olaf Hering wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 15, Tom Rini wrote:

quoted

And yes, passing -many does work on all older supported versions of
binutils.  So perhaps we should just add -Wa,-many to our cflags and be
done with it now (and for future fixes of this sort).

gcc 3.2 passes only -mppc, so all altive instructions will fail to
compile without either -many or -maltivec

Are there altivec instructions when CONFIG_ALTIVEC is not set?

Yes.  And I can forsee in the future were we might have BookE specific
ones in the same situation.

Perhaps it makes sense to add a directive to the assembler to switch on the
fly, cfr. the `.chip' directive on m68k? E.g. using

AFAIK, the problem which caused the need for introducing -maltivec was
a problem with the disassembler and conflicting opcodes.  It should still
be able to check the validity of things with -many (I would hope..).

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/