The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: architectures (was: Re: master.debian.org)

>Would/does gcc-68k produce code which will run
>on 68000, 68030, 68032, 68040, 68XYZ?

This is a good point!  All of the 68k processors from 68020 and above
have basically identical instruction sets from the user-state point of
view.  The 060 is missing some of the more complicated addressing
modes, but these are (supposedly) emulated in software on the 060
faster than they were run in hardware on the 040.

The problem is with pre-020 chips.  They only have a 16-bit ALU and
this greatly restricts the available addressing modes.  You can
basically forget backward compatibility at that point unless everybody
were to provide the "-m68000" flag to gcc when compiling.  (Definitely
_not_ recommended!)

Also, the 6833x and 6834x series use the "CPU32" core and are almost
identical to the 68020 core except they lack bit-field instructions.
To compile for these processors requires the "-mno-bit-fields" option.
The 68300 series is intended for embedded systems, but I used a 68332
as a main processor (running OS-9/68000) for a few years.  Gcc works
fine for it with the specified option.

                                        Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@bnr.ca )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.