Re: [PATCH/RFA] Include sh64 support for shle-*-netbsdelf*

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:19:31PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 14, 2002, Nick Clifton <nickc@cambridge.redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Elena,
> 
> [snip]
> >> No, it wouldn't be accepted. We are going towards unifying all the
> >> targets for a given architecture, so that we can switch at runtime
> >> with multiarch.
> 
> > Hmm, OK - in which case would it be acceptable to say that in order to
> > obtain GDB support an SH toolchain should be configured as "sh-elf"
> > and not "sh3-elf" even if the intended default processor is the SH3 ?
> > ie that configurations such as "sh3-elf" are becoming obsolete and
> > will one day be removed ?
> 
> This would be a bad idea.  Consider, for example, sh3-linux-gnu, where
> you *really* have to configure at least glibc with sh3-linux-gnu
> (because glibc can't be multilibbed).  Ideally, you should be able to
> configure everything with the same triplet.
> 
> It wouldn't be the end of the world if glibc required a different
> configure triplet, but I guess the GNU/Linux/SH folks would be annoyed
> if they couldn't have a config.guess that was enough to build all of
> their tools.  I.e., at least sh3-*-linux-gnu should remain supported
> by GDB.

Actually, since we already need to build most userland programs as
sh-*-linux-gnu, it doesn't really matter.  Just treat GDB as an
application instead of a tool.  This is needed because of the long
history of indecision on what the SH targets should be called; the only
one routinely supported by config.* versions in existing packages is
sh-.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer