This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc 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: [mips] ABI shouldn't depend on ISA

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com> writes:

> On Mar 25, 2003, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de> wrote:
>>> +#define _MIPS_ISA_MIPS32 6  /* Defined for code that uses o32.  */
>>> +#define _MIPS_ISA_MIPS64 7  /* Defined for code that uses n64.  */
>> Or are my comments wrong?  Then you know why they're needed ;-)
> They're wrong.  MIPS32 and MIPS64 are ISA names just like MIPS1,
> MIPS2, MIPS3, MIPS4, MIPS5 (and the most recent MIPS32R2).  They're
> what you get when you specify -mips1, -mips2, -mips3, -mips4, -mips5,
> -mips32 and -mips64 in the GCC command line.  Their definitions are
> absolutely similar to those of earlier ISAs and, frankly, they should
> be meaningful to anyone familiar with the various revisions of the
> MIPS ISAs.  There's no point in adding comments to these two, unless
> we're adding comments to the others explaining that MIPS1 stands for
> MIPS I ISA, MIPS2 stands for MIPS II ISA, etc.  A single comment at
> the top might do it, but then, I still find it would be pointless:
> _MIPS_ISA already implies the meaning.  It takes some imagination to
> try to find a different meaning for them :-)

Ok, then leave it as is and commit the patch.

 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj at suse dot de
   private aj at arthur dot inka dot de

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