Re: [linuxsh-dev] Binutils 2.11.2 & SH

[Michael E. <ea...@mv...>]

"M. R. Brown" wrote:
> 
> * M. R. Brown <mr...@0x...> on Tue, Sep 11, 2001:
> 
> >
> > Also, what makes hardhat linux so different from sh-linux that it needs
> > it's own configure triplet?  Unless sh*-hardhat-linux modifies binutils in a
> > way that makes it incompatible with sh*-linux, you're just adding crud.
> > The configure scripts have long since supported *local*, it'd probably be
> > better to use that instead (e.g. sh4el-hardhat-linux-local).
> >
> 
> Whoops, I should've suggested that you not modify binutils to support this
> triplet at all.  It already supports sh[34]-*-linux, so you'd only be
> adding the config.sub stuff for sh[34]*[le] and sh[34]*[be], I suppose.
> 
> Sorry if I confused anyone :).

Our internal patches support sh[34]el and sh[34]eb.   We'd be happy 
to switch to something less ambiguous, sh[34]le, sh[34]be.

--
Michael Eager     ea...@mv...	408-328-8426	
MontaVista Software, Inc. 1237 E. Arques Ave., Sunnyvale, CA  94085