This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: MIPS IRIX compatibility vs. mips-elf

From: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
Cc: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:01:23 -0800
Subject: Re: MIPS IRIX compatibility vs. mips-elf
References: <20050128164621.GA21291@nevyn.them.org> <wvnwttxmp44.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com> <20050128174732.GA24792@nevyn.them.org>

> > Hmm.  Does it really make sense to test -shared on a mips*-elf target?
> > It's only really designed to handle static executables, so there's no
> > well-defined "right" output.
> > 
> > (Not that I'm objecting to removing IRIX compatibility, btw.)
> 
> It's true that it's not clear what the right output is.  My precedent
> is that it turned out assorted embedded folks actually do use shared
> libraries with arm-elf (in one way or another).
> 
> Either's fine with me...
> 

I've seen embedded users use shared libraries as well. Not that I've
ever understood why but...

Anyhow, I'm good with removing the irix compatibility. Go ahead.

-eric

References:
- MIPS IRIX compatibility vs. mips-elf
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: MIPS IRIX compatibility vs. mips-elf
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: MIPS IRIX compatibility vs. mips-elf
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]