Hello,
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 22:13:11 +0000 Wookey wookey@wookware.org wrote:
[]
P.S. Any chance we could hope for -m32 switch, familiar from x86_64?
No! That's a terrible idea. Do you expect -m32 to produce armhf or armel or ilp32 ABI binaries? Why would one make any more sense than the others?
-m32 is a nasty hack IMHO, which works so long as you only have one 32-bit ABI and build multilib tools, but is not a good solution generally: https://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/Cross#Multiarch_vs_Multilib and I donlt think we should copy the mistakes of x86 world in arm world when we can just do it right instead.
Sure, let's not have all those UEFIs and ACPIs and other mess. No wait, some folks say they will let ARM into "big things" only if those are there ;-). Well, I hope nobody will judge AArch64 by the lack of -m32.
As for what it could mean, many options in gcc are anyway get default values at build time (like -mtune), so -m32 could be set to whatever makes the most sense for particular build. But I'm not advocating it in any way, just trying to apply my previous experience with a 64-bit arch to a new one (my guess is that many "mere" folks would do that, so at least would be nice to have answers ready for them, that's why I cc: 96boards list).
[]
What are you actually trying to do anyway? I thought everyone had given up with ilp32, so we can ignore it? We have patches to make ilp32 behave like a proper ABI, but they are not yet upstreamed because there is no agreed syscall interface for the kernel + glibc to implement: https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/arm64-ilp32
Well, I compiled an app, it eventually crashed, next logical step (based on x86_64 experience) is to build it in 32-bit mode, to see if it crashes again, or the crash is an artifact of 64-bitness.
Wookey