From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21237 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2002 15:56:15 -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 21214 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2002 15:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO yeah-baby.shagadelic.org) (208.176.2.162) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2002 15:56:08 -0000 Received: by yeah-baby.shagadelic.org (Postfix, from userid 2158) id 0B0307DB1; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:56:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:56:00 -0000 From: Jason R Thorpe To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: HPPA multiarching plan Message-ID: <20021126155607.GB23574@yeah-baby.shagadelic.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jason R Thorpe , Andrew Cagney , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20021126004857.GB23000@gnat.com> <20021126010438.GD21009@yeah-baby.shagadelic.org> <3DE392B3.70205@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DE392B3.70205@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Wasabi Systems, Inc. X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00650.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:26:43AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Assuming that HPPA64 and HPPA are different ABIs (true?), then they > should be identified using separate OSABI designations. That way, the > ABI code is independant of the underlying object file format (ELF or SOM > or ....). > > This is more in line with MIPS with n32, o32, o64 and 64. Err.. but different ABIs at that level aren't really the same as different OSABIs, though, right? I.e. Linux/mips and NetBSD/mips both use o32 (same ABI) but different OSABIs. Similarly, NetBSD/mips could support both the o32 and n32 ABIs (well, once the n32 tools work :-), but they'd still use the same OSABI because apart from the low-level, things like shared library handling, signals, etc. are the same. -- -- Jason R. Thorpe