From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Jaeger To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jiri Smid , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Port to x86-64 Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:02:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <3ACE17BB.1D2BA022@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00059.html Andrew Cagney writes: > Jiri Smid wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Andreas Jaeger writes: > > > > > > > > > > o submit the configury mess early > > > > > > > > even if you don't have real code > > > > could I suggest thinking about > > > > separating this out so that > > > > you can get on with the real > > > > work. > > > > > > > > Before I will submit the configury mess I would like to little discuss > > about it. > > The generic name of CPU is x86_64 in already ported software. It seems > > that there shoud be create new config directory gdb/config/x86_64. But > > this processor is extended i386 architecture and many parts of code will > > be the same as in i386. > > I think that the best solution is to create this new config directory > > x86_64 and from tm-x86_64.h include i386/tm-i386.h and redefine some > > declarations. What do you think? > > What convention, if any, was adopted by GCC and what do config.guess / > config.sub return? config.guess/config.sub return x86_64 since x86-64 would cause problems since the "-" is special for config. > I suspect that ``x86-64'' is going to be more acceptable than x86_64 a > file name. As filename, definitly. For GCC the support is part of the i386 file. For binutils, the assembler/dissassembler is shared with i386, but we have also: ./bfd/elf64-x86-64.c ./include/elf/x86-64.h Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de http://www.suse.de/~aj