This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:10:18 -0700
- Cc: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>, cgd at broadcom 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> <yov5g0bcakr8.fsf@highland.sibyte.com> <996659488.32593.34.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com> <3B701244.3020706@cygnus.com>
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:07:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> Perhaphs the question to ask is: is this being done for technical or
> asthetic reasons?
It is done purely for technical reasons on Linux/mips. We only support
the SVR4 ABI, not the SGI ABI. I doubt any non-SGI mips targets support
the SGI ABI.
H.J.