[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MiNT] Still don't get it - difference between 68020 and 68020-60
> For me this discussion is about making GCC do what is capable, not the
> fact whether packages, package maintainers, or developers make use of
> that support or not. But it gives that flexibility when the time arises.
But the rpm/bzip/whatever package size will increase drastically (add
~8 MB for each new target), it's not only about libgcc but also about
c++ libs! I really can't agree with 7*2 targets just because "we can".
How many of you would use these new configurations for your builds?
It's quite rare case there's m68020-60 version provided for some
application. I think we should focus on what developers need. If
Patrice and possibly others think m68030/soft-float is worth of it /
usable, ok, but please, not another 6*2 targets. As I see it,
currently we need / use: 68000/mshort, m68030/mlong, m68020-60/mlong
and m5475/mlong. In case gcc patch could somehow provide this and only
this set, I celebrate :)
--
MiKRO / Mystic Bytes
http://mikro.atari.org