From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22197 invoked by alias); 14 May 2002 15:46:49 -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 22067 invoked from network); 14 May 2002 15:46:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 May 2002 15:46:42 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 177eV6-0000Ah-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:46:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 08:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Nick Clifton , Elena Zannoni , thorpej@wasabisystems.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Include sh64 support for shle-*-netbsdelf* Message-ID: <20020514154608.GA457@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alexandre Oliva , Nick Clifton , Elena Zannoni , thorpej@wasabisystems.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020511115603.W3435@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <20020513082324.R3435@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <15584.11203.728429.774659@localhost.redhat.com> <15585.5715.936570.74188@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:19:31PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 14, 2002, Nick Clifton wrote: > > > Hi Elena, > > [snip] > >> No, it wouldn't be accepted. We are going towards unifying all the > >> targets for a given architecture, so that we can switch at runtime > >> with multiarch. > > > Hmm, OK - in which case would it be acceptable to say that in order to > > obtain GDB support an SH toolchain should be configured as "sh-elf" > > and not "sh3-elf" even if the intended default processor is the SH3 ? > > ie that configurations such as "sh3-elf" are becoming obsolete and > > will one day be removed ? > > This would be a bad idea. Consider, for example, sh3-linux-gnu, where > you *really* have to configure at least glibc with sh3-linux-gnu > (because glibc can't be multilibbed). Ideally, you should be able to > configure everything with the same triplet. > > It wouldn't be the end of the world if glibc required a different > configure triplet, but I guess the GNU/Linux/SH folks would be annoyed > if they couldn't have a config.guess that was enough to build all of > their tools. I.e., at least sh3-*-linux-gnu should remain supported > by GDB. Actually, since we already need to build most userland programs as sh-*-linux-gnu, it doesn't really matter. Just treat GDB as an application instead of a tool. This is needed because of the long history of indecision on what the SH targets should be called; the only one routinely supported by config.* versions in existing packages is sh-. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer