This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils patches for Cirrus/arm9e/maverick support
- To: philb at gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: binutils patches for Cirrus/arm9e/maverick support
- From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Date: 09 Oct 2001 15:26:32 -0400
- Cc: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour at redhat dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>, binutils <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- References: <E15r2R0-0005M2-00@kc.cam.armlinux.org>
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.