mips64 n32 and n64 support in dl-machine.h

[Roland McGrath]

> It's not only this.  The whole concept the mips "ABI" (I wouldn't even
> call it that) uses is broken.  MIPS alone would have as many ABIs as all
> the others architectures.  Somebody who is not MIPS-affiliated should
> design one new ABI and all the old ABIs should be forgotten.  Adding any
> of these changes would increase maintenance costs considerably for no
> benefit except for MIPS.  So it's them who have to carry the load by
> maintaining their own branch if they insist on these braindamaged ABIs
> to exist.

That attitude doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I don't see a maintenance
burden on the generic code from any of the mips-related changes that I have
seen so far.  Inventing yet another ABI just because the existing ones are
stupid does not seem especially wise.