<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Florian Reinhard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:florian.reinhard@googlemail.com" target="_blank">florian.reinhard@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If ARM and DSP toolchain are commandline compatible, there could be an<br>
option to specify the architecture, like C6000 (DSP core in OMAP<br>
processors), C2000, C6400 which map to the correct<br>
compiler/linker/archiver/strip names.<br></blockquote><div><br>1) Of course, TI for sure shares the language parser among the toolchains, so do they with the interface. It would not make too much sense otherwise. I bet it is only a historical issue why they do not use their binaries with the same names. Note that, they already migrated from cl470.exe to armcl.exe to be more generic across ARM cores. One step ahead could be that they even merge that with the DSP toolchain binaries in the future with a relevant target option, or perhaps not. It is not a biggie after all.<br>
<br>2) I am not sure an option is a good idea. In fact, you need to specify the compiler executable (path) in your toolchain file, and once you specify that, the other executables match the naming schema quite well to be logical what their name would be.<br>
<br>Laszlo<br></div></div>