This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- To: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:46:46 -0400
- Cc: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, cgd at sibyte dot com,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>
> I believe only IRIX should use the SGI ABI and the rest should use
>> the SVR4 ABI. But it is not my call. I have no problems to limit
>> the SVR4 ABI to Linux in the binutils testcases.
>>
>
>
> I'd agree with this, and I think cgd would as well. It'd at least add
> some uniformity and deal with the big/little endian issue as well.
Where does this leave the PMAX?
Andrew