This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- To: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- From: cgd at broadcom dot com
- Date: 31 Jul 2001 13:47:39 -0700
- cc: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>,binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <yov5vgkk234z.fsf@highland.sibyte.com><20010722122158.A30063@lucon.org><yov5n15wvi35.fsf@highland.sibyte.com><20010722192915.A18268@lucon.org><996565816.2316.12.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com>
"Eric Christopher" <echristo@redhat.com> writes:
> > I believe only IRIX should use the SGI ABI and the rest should use
> > the SVR4 ABI. But it is not my call. I have no problems to limit
> > the SVR4 ABI to Linux in the binutils testcases.
> >
>
> I'd agree with this, and I think cgd would as well. It'd at least add
> some uniformity and deal with the big/little endian issue as well.
Err, agree with which? 8-)
* making the test-case consistent w/ the configury as it is now, or
* Making only IRIX use the SGI ABI ('non-traditional'), and move all
existing non-os-specific 'embedded' targets (incl. mips-elf and
mipsel-elf) over to 'traditional mips' (or worse, even the non-IRIX
OS-specific ones)?
I don't really like latter choice, but don't _deeply_ care either.
Certainly it would make things more consistent, but is it really
desirable to change the ABI and configuration in use for ... who knows
how long, for those targets?
How many build scripts out there code the names of the emulations,
etc... (I know that can be worked around... but who knows what else
there is.)
chris