GCC 4.1.1 m68k-rtems generating invalid code for -m5307 proce ssor ?

[chrisj at rtems.org (Chris Johns)]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> So you are saying a fundamental multilib variant is missing from the
> rtems-m68k multilibs? 
> 

Given Ian's actual results and what I found taking a look at the m68k.md in 
gcc-4.2.0 I think there could be.

I found TARGET_CFV4, TARGET_CF_HWDIV, and TARGET_COLDFIRE_FPU used. I do not 
know how TARGET_CF_HWDIV is defined and the v4 core has an FPU.

So I would have thought a set of libs for the v4 core and if the HWDIV is 
supported on the v3 core and gcc uses it then this should also be considered.

> While we're at it: The m68k port in upstream GCC is a shape, it is not
> unlikely RTEMS can't avoid stop supporting the m68k.

I am sorry but I do not understand this sentence.

>  I hope, such an escalation can be avoided, but ATM I can't exclude
> anything. I can only encourage anybody being interested future m68k
> support in GCC/rtems to actively contribute to upstream FSF-GCC.

I was under the impression Freescale was getting Codesourcery to update gcc to 
better support the Coldfire. I am not sure on the status of this work and how 
it relates to the FSF source.

Regards
Chris