Re: binutils patches for Cirrus/arm9e/maverick support

[Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 15:20, philb@gnu.org wrote:
> In message <3BC33655.47390D36@redhat.com>, Jonathan Larmour writes:
> >Actually the Maverick is a family of CPUs from Cirrus, of which only one is
> >at present an ARM9: http://beamaverick.com/sub.cfm?CategoryID=2
> 
> Mmm.  Well, they seem to include CLPS7500FE in the "Maverick" family,
> and that pretty clearly doesn't support the DSP extensions that are at
> issue here.  But if Cirrus haven't given the actual instruction set a
> name, using "maverick" to describe it is probably the best you can do.
> 
> So: maverick-elf?  Well, it might be nicer if all ARM-derived targets
> had names generally in the pattern arm*-*, and that would avoid any
> future embarrassment if Cirrus decide to expand the Maverick marketing
> name to, say, MIPS-based processors.  But "armmaverick" is, if
> anything, even more ugly a name than "beamaverick".
> 
> It doesn't really matter all that much anyway.  Even something like
> "arm9m-elf" would probably be okay.

hey, i was in favor of arm9e which would require no coding on my part :)

but arm9m would be even better.  else arm9maverick-elf
> 
> p.
-- 
Aldy Hernandez					E-mail: aldyh@redhat.com
Professional Gypsy on a [broken] Motorcycle
Red Hat, Inc.