linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PATCH: Handle Linux/mips (Re: Why is byteorder removed from /proc/cp

To: Ben Elliston <bje@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Handle Linux/mips (Re: Why is byteorder removed from /proc/cpuinfo?)
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:30:08 -0200
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112110939100.17417-100000@hypatia.brisbane.redhat.com>; from bje@redhat.com on Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:40:50AM +1000
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1011210211533.24010J-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112110939100.17417-100000@hypatia.brisbane.redhat.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:40:50AM +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:

> > > crosscompilation unlike the /proc/cpuinfo thing and doesn't rely on
> > > properly installed libraries and headers might possibly of interest for
> > > building standalone software.
> 
> >  Hmm, I don't think config.guess is ever used for cross-compilation as
> > the script's purpose is to guess the host and you need to specify one
> > explicitly for a cross-compilation to happen.  Anyway it's saner not
> > to use build system properties to guess host system ones.
> 
> You're close, but not quite correct.  In a cross-compilation environment,
> the job of config.guess is to determine the type of the build system,
> which may be different to the host and will certainly be different to the
> target.

In case of Linux/MIPS it could guess wether it's a little endian or big
endian configuration and emit mips-unknown-gnu-linux or
mipsel-unknown-gnu-linux that is taking away the burden of the user knowing
about the right endianess for his target - specifying mips-linux as target
should then be sufficient.  Does that sound sane or would overriding the
users explicitly give targetname (or even hostname for a native build) be
considered a bad thing?

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>