Re: Porting glibc to Coldfire

[Wouter Verhelst <wouter at grep dot be>]

Hi,

(I'm not subscribed to the list, but got pointed to this mail by Martin
Michlmayr; I don't think followups will be necessary, but if they are,
please do Cc me)

Richard Sandiford:
[...]
> Coldfire vs. m680x0
> ===================
> 
> I suppose one fundamental question is: should Coldfire be treated as
> a separate port from m68k, or as a subport?  Although there are several
> differences between Coldfire and m680x0, I think the architectures are
> similar enough to justify treating them as variations of the same base
> port.  gcc, linux and uClinux have done the same thing.

Just to add my two cents...

Seen as how I'm currently trying to get Debian/m68k (which is the only
current GNU/Linux distribution for m68k) to work on ColdFire V4e too, in
addition to "classic" 68k hardware, I would very much appreciat that; it
would make my work a lot easier.

Not that I'm anywhere near trying to get me a glibc that will work on
both 680x0 hardware and CF v4e yet (still have to finish up binutils,
and start doing gcc after that), but it would help if I don't have to
merge too much code when I do get there.

[...]

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4