Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Guido Guenther wrote:
>
> > Looking at gcc-3.3:
> >
> > #define ABI_32 0
> > #define ABI_N32 1
> > #define ABI_64 2
> > #define ABI_EABI 3
> > #define ABI_O64 4
> >
> > The naming is very "unfortunate", though. We have (n32,64) and (32,o64).
> > Wouldn't it help to at least allow for n64 and o32 commandline options?
> > -mabi=32 and -mabi=64 will have to be kept for Irix compatibility
> > though, I think.
>
> Why unfortunate? You use "32" and "64" for normal stuff, and the rest
> for special cases ("n32" isn't really 32-bit and "o64" isn't really 64-bit
> -- both lie in the middle).
Exactly this is the sort of confusion which makes the naming unfortunate.
-32 and -64 had never much to do with 32/64 bit but designate ABIs.
> Additional aliases of the "n64" and "o32"
> form would make more confusion, IMHO.
I disagree.
Thiemo
