From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-19317-listarch-binutils=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 19148 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2002 21:28:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 19072 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 21:28:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO iris1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de) (129.69.118.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2002 21:28:23 -0000
Received: from rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de ([129.69.118.42])
	by iris1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2)
	id 17UDKu-001EFm-00; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:24:52 +0200
Received: from ica2_ts by rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17UDNg-0005ZA-00; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:27:44 +0200
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:30:00 -0000
To: Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@redhat.com>,
	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
	binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFC & patch: Rework MIPS command-line handling
Message-ID: <20020715212744.GH16056@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020712194308.7646E-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl> <wvnptxpb6o4.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com> <20020715195043.GE16056@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <1026764196.1545.24.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com> <20020715203056.GG16056@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <1026766665.1525.45.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1026766665.1525.45.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
From: Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2

Eric Christopher wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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.

What if somebody wants to run 32 bit EABI on a 64 bit processor for
some (backward compatibility) reason, and also wants to use some
processor specific opcodes?


Thiemo