New target for Coldfire v4e?

[Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>]

Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Peter Barada wrote:
> 
>>>> I'm looking at splitting off the gcc/config/m68k directory into
>>>> gcc/config/coldfire for some of this and future work and adding
>>>> configs or coldfire-elf and coldfire-linux...
>>>
>>>
>>> You'd also need to move m68k-uclinux to coldfire-uclinux.  Actually,
>>> there was a port of uClinux to the 68000 (Amiga 500) and DragonBall
>>> (Palm II), but these are mostly unofficial.
>>>
>>> Are you also going to cleanup the m68k target by removing the
>>> ColdFire bits?
>>
>>
>>
>> If people would buy into the concept so its not all wasted work, then
>> yes, I'd pull all the ColdFire bits out of gcc/config/m68k and place
>> them in gcc/config/coldfire.
> 
> 
> We're talking about slimming m68k.md by about 500 lines here and
> simplifying m68k.c in many places.  That would be yummie.
> 
> However, I'm concerned about code duplication.  Many bugs would
> certainly still affect both backends and many improvements would
> be applicable to both.
> 
> Couldn't we "split" the m68k backend in three parts instead?
> A core part (m68k) containing all common code and two backends
> based on it: m680x0 and coldfire.  (CPU32 would stay with the
> 68000 of course).
> 
> This would require slightly more work initially, but it would
> reduce maintenance costs in the long term.
> 

I have been following this and want to make sure I am understanding.

Would there now be separate m68k and coldfire targets?  Said another
way, would m68k-XYZ be able to include Coldfire support?

-
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
    Support Available             (256) 722-9985