This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling

From: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
To: Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts at csv dot ica dot uni-stuttgart dot de>
Cc: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: 15 Jul 2002 13:57:44 -0700
Subject: Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020712194308.7646E-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl><wvnptxpb6o4.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com><20020715195043.GE16056@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de><1026764196.1545.24.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com> <20020715203056.GG16056@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>

> 
> Err, different register sizes make the binary interfaces incompatible.
> If this is the same ABI nevertheless, what ABIs would you call
> different then?

Ah yes, but that's an architecture difference here. Neither of the EABIs
are restricted to particular register sizes. This should be a check in
architecture, not ABI, at least IMO.

-eric

-- 
I will not grease the monkey bars

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
  - From: Thiemo Seufer

References:
- Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
  - From: Maciej W. Rozycki
- Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
  - From: Thiemo Seufer
- Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
  - From: Eric Christopher
- Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
  - From: Thiemo Seufer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]