[PATCH] config.bfd: Adding tic4x-*-rtems
Joel Sherrill
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com
Mon Jun 23 17:09:00 GMT 2003
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> Am Fre, 2003-06-20 um 10.33 schrieb Nick Clifton:
> > Hi Ralf,
> >
> > > I would like to propose tic4x-*-rtems to be added to config.bfd (2.14 +
> > > mainline, cf. patch against 2.14-branch below)
> >
> >
> > > 2003-06-20 Ralf Corsepius <corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de>
> > >
> > > * config.bfd: Add tic4x-*-rtems*.
> >
> > Approved and applied. (Although I just added the new entry on the
> > same line as the current (ti)c4x-coff entry. I saw no particular
> > reason to split it up over multiple lines.
> ;)
>
> > One question though:
> >
> > > + c4x-*-*coff* | \
> > > + tic4x-*-*coff* | tic4x-*-rtems*)
> >
> > Shouldn't there also be support for a "c4x-*-rtems*" target ?
>
> IMHO, there should not be any c4x-* target (I.e. IMHO, references to
> c4x-* should be removed from binutils, because the c4x-*-target is dead
> for binutils and gcc and has been replaced by tic4x-*.)
>
> Therefore, instead, binutils should better complain and abort if being
> configured for c4x-*.
My understanding is that c4x-* was only usable with the set of patches
Michael Hayes' distributed. They haven't been updated in a long time
so I don't mind if c4x-* is purged as well. There can't be that many
users.
However, if there is a real difference between what c4x-* did and
tic4x-* is intended to do, then the distinction may be important.
Right now, I don't see that it is. It is just a matter of the
first porting effort choosing a naming style that subsequent TI DSP
ports didn't. It is now in the minority and can't be used by many
people.
> Ralf
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
More information about the Binutils
mailing list