On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 11:02:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > Errm? AFAICT, you must NOT pass -maltivec to cflags, because this > > > changes code generation and the ABI. > > > > I think you mean -mabi=altivec > > ??? -maltivec is a macro and comprises many options. > > What -maltivec does in detail is very complicated, much more complicated > than what most other -m* flags do. Also it has changed several times > over GCC's history. Well, we are talking about the present use of -maltivec, or not? > I.e. the code being generated using it, is not necessarily > guaranteed to be compatible nor to be runable on those ppc variants > Fedora/RH supports. According to the release notes Fedora currently supports G3 upwards, altivec is guaranteed only G4 upwards. So it looks like there can are altivec-less system on the support matrix. Given the choice to drop G3 support or altivec, I'd suggest to drop G3. But that's not to decide on a package basis, and certainly not retrospective to a live release. > From my experience with GCC and altivec (I am co-maintainer of > powerpc-rtems-gcc), I am expecting it to break things, but I am not > sufficiently familiar with powerpc-redhat-gcc to be able to judge. > > > May-be somebody being more familiar with ppc-Fedora than I might > > > be able to comment. You seem familiar enough if you maintain a gcc backend ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpqby01LQNtU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
