Re: c4x - TMS320C30-40

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

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Svein E. Seldal wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > IMO, then, binutils (!) should not accept "c4x".
>
> Well this is easier said than done. When Michael Hayes ported the c4x
> port to the gcc, it was named 'c4x'. All files for this port is located
> in the gcc/config/c4x directory.
>
> Later it was decided that the official name for this target should be
> 'tic4x', not 'c4x', mainly because there are other Texas Instruments
> (hence ti) targets that has applied this scheme. 'tic4x' is a more
> descriptive name than 'c4x', and coexists better with other targets.
>
> However, the gcc still uses the 'c4x' name, simply because all the files
> have been checked in under the 'c4x' name. Because you cannot simply
> rename the gcc/config/c4x to gcc/config/tic4x, gcc uses the c4x as its
> native target name. So gcc needs alias 'tic4x' as a 'c4x' target.

I think I spot a misconception: the GCC target directory name
does *not* mandate the actual target name.  See xstormy16 which
lives in stormy16/.  It had a name-change after the port was
included.

> On the other hand, binutils has the problem the other way around:
> binutils needs to alias 'c4x' is in fact a 'tic4x' target.

No name dependence here either.

> Thus we have the duality of this target name, in which we need to
> support both.

You might need to, but not due to any file name in gcc or
binutils.

(BTW, tic4x-elf *should* expand to tic4x-unknown-elf.  There
should be no need to provide a company field; if there is, it's
a bug.)

brgds, H-P