Re: [MiNT] Still don't get it - difference between 68020 and 68020-60

[Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>]

On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 12:29 +0200, Patrice Mandin wrote:
> Le Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:27:46 -0400 (EDT)
> Keith Scroggins <kws@radix.net> a écrit:
> 
> > -m68020 with use the -m68020-60 option.
> > 
> > So, you either build:
> > 
> > 68000 code
> > Code compatible with 68020-60 with FPU
> > Code compatible with v4e Coldfire CPUs
> > 
> > No other targets are supported.
> > 
> > To support straight -m68020, someone would need to specifically build libc 
> > and friends supporting it, and maintain it, besides adding support to GCC.
> 
> That's why I keep a gcc patch around to be able to build 68020 code
> without FPU, mainly to target standard Falcon without FPU.

Because the Falcon without FPU is the stock machine, I think we actually
should be providing support for this configuration.

> I understand why Vincent would not put it in his gcc patch, as it would
> mean 8 multilib configurations (68000,68020,68020-60,m5475, each
> with/without mshort) when building gcc. This is not a problem for me,
> as I build cross-compilers; it's done fast on my PC, and I have
> plenty of hard disk space.

Not really a good excuse if it is. It's a one time build for the RPM, as
most people will use the binaries provided.

Alan.