m68k does not imply m68020-60

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

m68k does not imply m68020-60

Andrew Cagney
Having the compiler generate m68020-60 instructions made running on my
coldfire very difficult :-(  I think it is better to just honour the
compiler.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-nspr mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-nspr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: m68k does not imply m68020-60

Wan-Teh Chang-3
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Andrew Cagney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Having the compiler generate m68020-60 instructions made running on my
> coldfire very difficult :-(  I think it is better to just honour the
> compiler.

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for the post. I did a search for "m68k" in the NSPR source
tree. I believe you are referring to this m68k case in the
configure.in script:

1859     m68k)
1860         CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -m68020-60"
1861         CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -m68020-60"
1862         ;;

The revision history shows this was added in 1999 and 2002:

https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/rev/29227fdc9a15
https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/rev/879b717836d9

I think we should just delete the m68k case from the configure.in
script. Agreed?

Wan-Teh
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-nspr mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-nspr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: m68k does not imply m68020-60

Andrew Cagney
On 26 November 2015 at 11:39, Wan-Teh Chang <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Andrew Cagney <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Having the compiler generate m68020-60 instructions made running on my
>> coldfire very difficult :-(  I think it is better to just honour the
>> compiler.
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thank you for the post. I did a search for "m68k" in the NSPR source
> tree. I believe you are referring to this m68k case in the
> configure.in script:
>
> 1859     m68k)
> 1860         CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -m68020-60"
> 1861         CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -m68020-60"
> 1862         ;;
>
> The revision history shows this was added in 1999 and 2002:
>
> https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/rev/29227fdc9a15
> https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/rev/879b717836d9
>
> I think we should just delete the m68k case from the configure.in
> script. Agreed?

Yes.  I thought I'd attached the below which does just that:

--- nspr-4.10.9/nspr/configure.in.orig    2015-11-25 15:17:14.732725317 -0500
+++ nspr-4.10.9/nspr/configure.in    2015-11-25 20:09:38.299725384 -0500
@@ -1857,8 +1865,4 @@
         fi
         ;;
-    m68k)
-        CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -m68020-60"
-        CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -m68020-60"
-        ;;
     esac
     ;;

thanks.
Andrew

> Wan-Teh
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-nspr mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-nspr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: m68k does not imply m68020-60

Wan-Teh Chang-3
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Andrew Cagney <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26 November 2015 at 11:39, Wan-Teh Chang <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I think we should just delete the m68k case from the configure.in
>> script. Agreed?
>
> Yes.  I thought I'd attached the below which does just that:
>
> --- nspr-4.10.9/nspr/configure.in.orig    2015-11-25 15:17:14.732725317 -0500
> +++ nspr-4.10.9/nspr/configure.in    2015-11-25 20:09:38.299725384 -0500
> @@ -1857,8 +1865,4 @@
>          fi
>          ;;
> -    m68k)
> -        CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -m68020-60"
> -        CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -m68020-60"
> -        ;;
>      esac
>      ;;
>

I checked in your patch:
https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/rev/0c58fe90cf11

Thanks,
Wan-Teh
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-nspr mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-nspr