linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux

To: Ralf Baechle DL5RB <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:42:39 +0100 (BST)
Cc: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20050707162959.GQ2822@linux-mips.org>
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> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507071356450.3205@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20050707162959.GQ2822@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ralf Baechle DL5RB wrote:

> >  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.
> 
> -EB / -EL are traditionally the options that all MIPS compilers including
> non-gcc compilers, seem to support.

 That's probably why they are there in GCC at all, but they are rather 
inconsistent with the rest of GCC options and we rely on GCC for builds 
anyway, so who cares?

  Maciej

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