For some reason that is not yet completely clear to me, the mips64*-*-linux* targets in binutils 2.33.1 default to the n32 ABI, rather than n64.
There are no additional variants to choose the n64 ABI, and so it's not possible to build a mips64 toolchain with the n64 ABI using musl-cross-make.
I have been including a local patch for binutils-2.32 so that mips64*-*-linux* defaults to n64 and introducing support for mips64*-*-linux*n32, but I would like to upstream a solution, if possible.
- Debian's binutils source package includes a patch that introduces a
mips*64-*-linux-*gnuabi64 tuple
- It looks like a recent binutils commit (July 2023) has included support for Debian's
-gnuabi64.
For upstream binutils, I think they at least should have used mips*64*-*-linux*-*abi64 to get the GNU out of the ABI specifier.
Does it make sense to patch binutils here in musl-cross-make to include mips*64*-*-linux*-*abi64 and maybe open a discussion on the binutils mailing list about -gnuabi64?
For some reason that is not yet completely clear to me, the
mips64*-*-linux*targets in binutils 2.33.1 default to the n32 ABI, rather than n64.There are no additional variants to choose the n64 ABI, and so it's not possible to build a mips64 toolchain with the n64 ABI using musl-cross-make.
I have been including a local patch for
binutils-2.32so thatmips64*-*-linux*defaults ton64and introducing support formips64*-*-linux*n32, but I would like to upstream a solution, if possible.mips*64-*-linux-*gnuabi64tuple-gnuabi64.For upstream binutils, I think they at least should have used
mips*64*-*-linux*-*abi64to get the GNU out of the ABI specifier.Does it make sense to patch
binutilshere in musl-cross-make to includemips*64*-*-linux*-*abi64and maybe open a discussion on thebinutilsmailing list about-gnuabi64?