New target for Coldfire v4e?

[Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>]

>>Would there now be separate m68k and coldfire targets?  Said another
>>way, would m68k-XYZ be able to include Coldfire support?
> 
> 
> The suggestion as I put it forth would be no.  You have sepperate
> tools, one --target=m68k-xyz for the m68k family, and
> --target=coldfire-xyz for the ColdFire family.

Obviously this has impact beyond gcc and would have to be
coordinated.  Targets would have to be added to at least
binutils, gdb, and newlib.

If a decision is made to move on this, I would suggest
that a push is made to get the targets into the other
tools soon so official releases with coldfire-xyz
have a chance to show up before they are requred by gcc.

I would also suggest that we consider being generous
with multilibs on both targets.  It looks like
m68k-rtems would only be able to go down 1 multilib
(m5200 based upon 3.3.5) while coldfire could be
expanded to have omre optimal libraries for some
variants.

Personally I don't have a problem with coldfire targets
not defining m68k although it will take a while to get
all the software fixed.  As someone said earlier,
embedded developers are cautious and the gcc adoption
timeframe is longer than with Linux distributions.
I would be surprised if it didn't take years to see
all the impacts of not defining m68k.  How many
embedded developers are still using gcc 2.95?

--joel