Re: GAS patch for sh*-unknown-linux-gnu

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Michael Eager wrote:

> NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> >
> > Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> >  > I'm not really sure about using "sh*eb-*-linux*" to denote a
> >  > GNU/Linux system using big endian code and data.  Is this triple
> >  > new or has it been used somewhere else?  I'm not sure I can
> >  > approve it if it's new.  Do we need it; do you know of any
> >  > GNU/Linux big endian variant?  It's not used in e.g. bfd.  Is
> >  > there an existing (non-SH-based) port where sh* would collide?
> >  > Can Ben Elliston, the config.* maintainer, shed some light?
> >
> > It's not new (for me :-).  For GNU/Linux on SuperH Project
> > (http://www.m17n.org/linux-sh/), there're for targets:
> >
> >         sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
> >         sh4eb-unknown-linux-gnu
> >         sh3-unknown-linux-gnu
> >         sh3eb-unknown-linux-gnu
>
> We patch binutils/gcc configure to support the following configurations:
>
>          sh4el-unknown-linux-gnu
>          sh4eb-unknown-linux-gnu
>          sh3el-unknown-linux-gnu
>          sh3eb-unknown-linux-gnu
>
> I don't think that defaulting to big or little endian is a good idea.
> It leads to unnecessary confusion.  (As if there ever is necessary
> confusion. :-))
>
> There is no preferred endianity, explicit is better, IMO.

Well, since FSF GCC defaults to little-endian for "sh-linux", it
is best for binutils to default to little endian too.

I'm sufficiently convinced that Niibe's changes are the way to
go, though they're not complete: we need patches for e.g. bfd as
well.  I'll commit
<URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2001-10/msg00277.html>
in a day or two; hopefully enough time for people to react if
they please.

brgds, H-P