From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8038 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2002 20:59:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7992 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 20:59:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO potter.sfbay.redhat.com) (205.180.83.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2002 20:59:22 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6FKxsQ16940; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:59:54 -0700 Subject: Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling From: Eric Christopher To: Thiemo Seufer Cc: Richard Sandiford , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20020715203056.GG16056@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> References: <20020715195043.GE16056@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <1026764196.1545.24.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com> <20020715203056.GG16056@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:25:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1026766665.1525.45.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 > > Err, different register sizes make the binary interfaces incompatible. > If this is the same ABI nevertheless, what ABIs would you call > different then? Ah yes, but that's an architecture difference here. Neither of the EABIs are restricted to particular register sizes. This should be a check in architecture, not ABI, at least IMO. -eric -- I will not grease the monkey bars