This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- To: cgd at broadcom dot com
- Subject: Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- From: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Date: 01 Aug 2001 10:51:22 +0100
- 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> <yov5g0bcakr8.fsf@highland.sibyte.com>
> Err, agree with which? 8-)
>
I was thinking changing the default abi, but your arguments are
compelling...
>
> * 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?
Good point. I'd like to use a different ABI by default, but I'm not
sure what the deal would be with breaking all of the previous. Does
anyone have any advice here?
-eric
--
Look out behind you!