Re: PR16350 patch ping - gcc doesn't understand big-endian ARM

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 11:17, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 
> > My primary concern is that a single letter here is just not
> > discriminating enough.  Anything less than two letters is just going to
> > cause problems in the future.  Overloading this onto the CPU name means
> > we need to take care to avoid potential CPU name extensions that might
> > add 'b' to the processor name.  To avoid problems I really think this
> > should be either 'eb' (preferred) or 'be'.
> 
> Big-endian target triples that are currently 'out there' are:
> 
> 	armeb-unknown-linux-gnu
> 	armv4b-unknown-linux-gnu
> 	armv5teb-unknown-linux-gnu
> 
> The first one is the 'generic' big-endian target triple, the second
> and third are what config.guess comes up with on a big-endian StrongARM
> resp. big-endian xscale.  Linux 2.4.* reports 'armv5b' instead of
> 'armv5teb' for the xscale.
> 

Then config.guess should be fixed.  The middle one of these is simply
wrong.

> Given these, arm*b- seemed the obvious choice.  'armeb- OR armv*b-'
> would perhaps also be an option?
> 
> binutils 2.15 has:
> 	./gas/configure:      arm*b|xscale*b|strongarm*b) cpu_type=arm endian=big ;;

And so should binutils.

Lets not propagate this problem any further than it needs.  Fixing
config.guess shouldn't break anything that currently matches a single
'b', but it will mean that in time we can solve this problem more
cleanly.