- Package:
- gcc-riscv64-unknown-elf
- Source:
- gcc-riscv64-unknown-elf
- Description:
- GCC compiler for embedded RISC-V chips
- Submitter:
- Marian Buschsieweke
- Date:
- 2025-01-08 19:06:02 UTC
- Severity:
- normal
According to https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CrossCompilation.html#target-triple the value "unknown" means "go with the defaults"; which currently seems to be "riscv64-none-elf". However, shouldn't we expect the default to possibly change the future? Also, IMO it would be better to explicitly "none" so that users don't need to figure out what "unknown" refers to.
just stumbling over this bug report ... yes, none would be the correct choice, as done for the gcc-arm-none-eabi package.
just stumbling over this bug report ... yes, none would be the correct choice, as done for the gcc-arm-none-eabi package.
From: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 11:09:53 +0100 The triplet came from the freedom-e-sdk toolchain, which this used to be built from. As that appears to be dead now, we could certainly change it. Of course, we'd need to provide a compatibility mechanism to avoid breaking existing users. However, I wonder if 'unknown' isn't correct here -- while this toolchain *can* be used for bare metal applications, it is also usable with a variety of RTOS, including Zephyr, RIOT and FreeRTOS. So, I'm not sure 'none' is right either?
From: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 11:09:53 +0100 The triplet came from the freedom-e-sdk toolchain, which this used to be built from. As that appears to be dead now, we could certainly change it. Of course, we'd need to provide a compatibility mechanism to avoid breaking existing users. However, I wonder if 'unknown' isn't correct here -- while this toolchain *can* be used for bare metal applications, it is also usable with a variety of RTOS, including Zephyr, RIOT and FreeRTOS. So, I'm not sure 'none' is right either?