PATCH: More mips3264 support

[cgd@broadcom.com]

"Eric Christopher" <echristo@redhat.com> writes:
> Not a whole lot really.  It's a name change, but it'll allow a hierarchy
> for configure as well, e.g.
> 
> mipsisa32-*-elf
> mipsisa32<weird chip>-*-elf
> mipsisa64<weird chip>-*-elf
> etc.

"Good."  8-)


> > If you plan to keep the bfd_mach_mipsisa32 & bfd_mach_mipsisa64
> > constant names, i suggest you do the same for bfd_mach_mipsisa5, and
> > nuke the bfd_mach_mips{32,64}.  Shouldn't need both sets, since the
> > latter are meant to describe the ISAs rather than particular
> > processors.
> > 
> 
> I kept meaning to ask.. what is bfd_mach_mips5 supposed to be for?  I've
> only seen 1-4...

"Why, binaries compiled with -mips5, using the MIPS V ISA!"  8-)

I'm not completely sure, but I don't believe that there are any
existing processors that actually implement 'vanilla' MIPS V.

A description of MIPS V ISA extensions can be pieced together from
looking at the MIPS64 spec (i.e. by looking to see what things came
from MIPS V), but can more easily be read in the document:

	http://www.mips.com/Documentation/isa5_tech_brf.pdf

("Paired Single" is basically it.)



cgd