This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] Add mips*el-rtems stubs
- From: Jia Liu <proljc at gmail dot com>
- To: Joel Sherrill <Joel dot Sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- Cc: Ralf Corsepius <ralf dot corsepius at googlemail dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, "ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org" <ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org>, "rdsandiford at googlemail dot com" <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:52:47 +0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] Add mips*el-rtems stubs
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi Joel Ralf and Richard,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Joel Sherrill
> I agree with Ralf.
> Jai. Post the entire tool chain patch set and RTEMS changes to the rtems-devel mailing list. For something like this, we just want to make sure all the bits are there and line up.
> Then once that review is done, it can go upstream.
This is a little difficult to me, this one the entire toolchain patch,
this binutils one is all to change.
but the RTEMS is not what I can handle, I know almost nothing about
RTOS/kernel, so I asked a friend to working on it, he tested my
toolchain is OK, but RTEMS patch set is not completed by him, so...
> Ralf Corsepius <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 12:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jia Liu <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'm working on several MIPS64-based processors, RTEMS is a part of my SDK.
>>> When I build a mips64el toolchain for RTEMS, I found that mips*el support
>>> has beed removed, so, I try to take it back.
>>> This patch is tested, and the RTEMS patch will summitted by a friend at ICT.
>> This looks good in principle. It was Ralf (cc:ed) who removed the port
> I don't recall me having done so ;) It probably was removed, because
> there currently is no mips*el port in RTEMS
>> so once he's happy that the port has indeed been resurrected
>> from an RTEMS POV,
> Well, I don't have any problem in a mips64el target being added to RTEMS
> and its toolchains, but so far, this does not apply.
>> I'll go ahead and apply it.
> I am uncertain on how to proceed. Without the missing other components
> (RTEMS, newlib, gcc (+ gdb)) also being submitted, adding a mips64el to
> binutils doesn't make much sense.