Re: [openrisc] Merging toolchain versions

[Matjaz Breskvar <phoenix@opencores.org>]

* Carlos Sánchez de La Lama (csanchez@teisa.unican.es) wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> I want to propose what I think would be a good way to merge the
> toolchains and make a code clean-up in the process. I think we should,
> in these order:
> 
> (1) Resolve specification problems, at least regarding software tools at
> the moment, that is, chapter 16 of the Architecture Manual (Aplication
> Binary Interface). A document should be written with a clear
> specification. I could do it, we just need a final discussion about all
> aspectos of the ABI and the freeze that as reference model.

i would suggest we start with inconsistencies between arch
manual and actual implementation someone has noticed and discuss it on the
list if neccessery. 

any other enchancments to arch manual are ofcourse also wellcomed,
though i believe current implementation (in oc toolchain) should
take precedence if there aren't obvious technical advantages in doing it
differently.
 
> (2) Change the target name to or1k in the development tools. I think
> this is a better name, as the architecture should (in a later stage)
> allow 64 bit implementations. This change of name would permit to
> maintain current ports working to allow users & developers to gradually
> adapt their sources, while we move functionality to the new target
> architecture from both versions of tools and cleaning the code in the
> process. I know a chage of name forces modifying existing Makefiles of
> other code for OpenRISC (uclinux, rtems, etc), but it's not much work (i
> had to do it once with my ecos).

i really don't feel strongly about this. the only concearn i have is that
it might confuse openrisc users. does anyone else have any comments ?

regards,
m.

PGP signature