This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: sh64-elf (SH5) port: directory opcodes
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:12:45 -0500
- Subject: Re: sh64-elf (SH5) port: directory opcodes
- References: <Pine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On 5 Feb 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2002, Andrew Cagney <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > Anyway, if you always include support for all the SH variants, does
>> > anything break?
>> Probably not, since --enable-targets=all works.
> Though you'd bloat binutils for people with sh[1-4] only. Some
> SH targets run native in limited systems, I've heard. Can we
> ignore the bloat issue?
Is this a generic problem? Most of the small systems - MIPS, mn10300,
sh, ... would all need to be tuned for small systems.
> Maybe let sh-elf imply bfd+opcodes for sh[1-5] and leave
> sh[1-4][hl]* the way it is?
> (Including opcodes but not bfd seems useless. You can't get a
> sh5 bfd, so you can't (without tricks) invoke the disassembler
By default having all of them is significantly better (I think). It
would also better integrate into GDB.