From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1370 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2002 01:16:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1363 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2002 01:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2002 01:16:12 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7113ll09737 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:03:47 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g711G5u03583; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:16:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g711G4m02310; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:16:04 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mips-tdep.c: Add "n64" to "set mips abi" help message From: Eric Christopher To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <1020731233211.ZM24389@localhost.localdomain> References: <1020731202815.ZM23228@localhost.localdomain> <3D486B72.AAFC6327@redhat.com> <1020731233211.ZM24389@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:30:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1028164461.24184.49.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00649.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 16:32, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Jul 31, 3:57pm, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > Isn't there also an "MEABI32" and "MEABI64"? > > I've seen these before somewhere. (bfd maybe). > They are in gcc and stuff. > > Something developed at mips? > > I don't know anything about them. > It was actually a multivendor (Jim Wilson was on the committee) development. It was never completed. > > Perhaps we should add placeholders for those? > > Sounds right to me so long as they're really different from the ones > we already have. > I wouldn't worry about it. I put it in gcc because I was told it was "almost complete" - almost 2 years ago. I pinged mips a few times and haven't heard anything. I'll probably remove support for it in the next few months if a final, useful, ABI doc doesn't materialize. -eric -- I don't want a pony, I want a rocket powered jetpack!