Re: toolchain requirements submission

[Marius Groeger <mgroeger at sysgo dot com>]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Wouter van Heyst wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:57:50AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Two people so far have mentioned they want big endian support, the rest
> does not seem to care. At least one of them did not object to two
> seperate toolchains, but taking your points below into account, it isn't
> the best idea. I personally stopped working with big-endian ixdp425 and
> just do little-endian nowadays.

FWIW, I can provide big-endian (BE) patches for binutils 2.14 and gcc
3.2.3 which I believe should work, but which I could never test due to
lack of HW. I'd gladly provide them to anyone interested and would
like to get any feedback on them.

The patches aim at getting a toolchain which _defaults_ to BE, rather
than the standard one which merely is _capable_ of generating BE by
throwing some commandline switches.

Regards,
Marius

PS. Before someone reminds me: I _am_ aware of gcc 3.2.3's
deficiencies on ARM, and I have already collected and applied the
fixes neccessary. :-)

-- 
Marius Groeger <mgroeger@sysgo.com>           Project Manager
SYSGO AG                      Embedded and Real-Time Software
Voice: +49 6136 9948 0                  FAX: +49 6136 9948 10
www.sysgo.com | www.elinos.com | www.osek.de | www.imerva.com


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com