| To: | Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux |
| From: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:01:11 +0100 (BST) |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20050707122226.GW1645@hattusa.textio> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20050707091937Z8226163-3678+1737@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507071227170.3205@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20050707121235.GV1645@hattusa.textio> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507071314010.3205@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20050707122226.GW1645@hattusa.textio> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > They are not in the info pages, but that should probably be considered an > > accidental omission. Is using something that's documented but doesn't > > work, to the contrary, any better? > > Probably not. It's just that I've never seen actual use of -mel/-meb yet. Good -- it means you haven't been watching over my shoulder. ;-) I've used them several times for big-endian builds with my toolchain, which, as you may be aware, has been exclusively little-endian so far. And they are actually used to implement these "-EL" and "-EB" options. Frankly I find "-mel" and "-meb" more consistent with the others as "-m*" generally imply target-specific options. Maciej |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux, Thiemo Seufer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux, Thiemo Seufer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux, Thiemo Seufer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux, Thiemo Seufer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |