Eric Christopher wrote:
> > At least for completeness there should be also _MIPS_ISA_MIPS5
> > (the -mips5 swich would cause _MIPS_ISA_MIPS1 otherwise).
> Rather irrelevent since mips5 really isn't supported in gcc, but ok. I
> was more concerned with the kernel issues and how checks for processor
> features was being done. Requiring -mipsX for anything isn't a good idea
> (what if you want to compile for something that is not a particular
> architecture, e.g. -march=r4600).
That's why my private patch for mips64-linux has: