[uClibc]Re: Strange busybox/uClibc problem

[Paul Komarek]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Martin Volf wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Paul Komarek wrote:
> > ...
> > It seems to me that Rules.mak or Config.i386 ought to specify -mcpu=i386
> > somewhere; Rules.mak specifies -march=i386 in the OPTIMIZATION variable,
> > but nobody specifies -mcpu=i386.  In the end, I grudgingly added it to the
> > WARNINGS variable.
>
> info gcc:
>
> `-march=CPU TYPE'
>      Generate instructions for the machine type CPU TYPE.  The choices
>      for CPU TYPE are the same as for `-mcpu'.  Moreover, specifying
>      `-march=CPU TYPE' implies `-mcpu=CPU TYPE'.
>
> Martin Volf

Thanks, Martin.  I had thought it was the other way around.  Because of
what you've writen, I did some more checks and indeed the problem was not
how uClibc was compiled, but how busybox and tinylogin were compiled.  In
particular, the compiler wrapper created by uClibc does use the arch flag.
gcc-uClibc.h has TARGET_ARCH devined (as i386 in my case), but
gcc-uClibc.c doesn't reference this macro (the gcc-uClibc Makefile does,
but only for determining paths).

Given Martin's correction, my question now becomes "shouldn't the
gcc-uClibc.c specify -march=TARGET_ARCH"?

-Paul Komarek