From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6673 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2005 17:47:38 -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 6600 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2005 17:47:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Jan 2005 17:47:33 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.43 #1 (Debian)) id 1CuaDU-0006TM-VN; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:47:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard Sandiford Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MIPS IRIX compatibility vs. mips-elf Message-ID: <20050128174732.GA24792@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Sandiford , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <20050128164621.GA21291@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00492.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:37:31PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > Of course, it's not quite clear what the value of mips-elf dynamic > > executables is. But it would be mildly nice if it worked, since that > > gives us better test coverage for the -shared tests. > > Hmm. Does it really make sense to test -shared on a mips*-elf target? > It's only really designed to handle static executables, so there's no > well-defined "right" output. > > (Not that I'm objecting to removing IRIX compatibility, btw.) It's true that it's not clear what the right output is. My precedent is that it turned out assorted embedded folks actually do use shared libraries with arm-elf (in one way or another). Either's fine with me... -- Daniel Jacobowitz