This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: traditional mips vs. little endian?
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 13:54:32 -0400
- 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> <20010807091018.C5936@lucon.org>
> 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.
I can read this several ways: target=mips-pc-linux-gnu gives SVR4 ABI by
default; or host/build=*-linux* target=mips* gives SVR4 ABI by default.
The latter is asthetic.
Andrew