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: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: binutils patches for Cirrus/arm9e/maverick support
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:56:44 +0100
- cc: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, philb at gnu dot org, Nick Clifton <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>, binutils <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > > I'd go for maverick (in the same way as xscale or strongarm); but I'd
> > > prefer to see something in the config files that noted that this was
> >
> > ok, one last go. is it going to be maverick or arm9maverick?
> >
> > just let me know what it is so i can code it.
>
> It can't be just "maverick" because maverick is no one chip.
But then, nor is "arm", nor is "strongarm" and nor, probably, is "xscale",
yet all three are accepted as cpu names.
If you're going to insist on a particular name, then perhaps it should be
EP9312, but how many people are going to know what that is...?
Of course, if I put an ARM marketing hat on, then perhaps I should go for
arm9maverick (since then the ARM cpu is highlighted); but in reality, what
is going to be the most useful mnemonic for a user here?