On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:23, Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24/05/11 18:06, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Geert Uytterhoeven<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Âwrites:
What exactly do you mean by "does not support anything less"? It seems it
does
restrict instruction generation to 68000 if you ask for it.
The point is that Linux/m68k requires 68020+, so compiling for 68000
does not make sense (at least back when the gcc configuration was
created).
Yeah, used to be true :-)
This seems very much to me to be a "broken compiler" issue.
Is it worth putting some form of compiler version limits to protect
compilation in the m68000 case? Â(Probably no need to limit it for
the existing 68020+ case).
Are there any other gcc defines that we could use instead?
We need to check with your old compiler Geert :-)
I really don't want to use CONFIG_MMU here (or in bitops.h either).
When I work in the ColdFire MMU code this won't be right.
I was more thinking along the lines of !CONFIG_M68000 && !CONFIG_M68010
&& !CONFIG_<whatever Coldfire that doesn't support it>.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
            Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
             Â Â -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
