From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Christopher To: "H . J . Lu" Cc: Andrew Cagney , Thiemo Seufer , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix distinction of 32/64bit addresses in MIPS gas Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:30:00 -0000 Message-id: <999300573.1423.75.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com> References: <20010825032615.E309@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20010831181657.A17249@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <200108311711.KAA19709@geoffk.org> <20010831193107.A10362@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20010831204556.C17249@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <3B900662.3040502@cygnus.com> <20010831150022.A4980@lucon.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00740.html > If I am rightt, the main problem is Thiemo and I want to support a > real MIPS ELF ABI, which mostly means dynamic binaries. As the most > ELF ABI, the MIPS ABI doesn't really cover static binaries. You can > do whatever you want with static binaries. It doesn't really matter > if you follow an ABI or not since a static binary is a standalone > binary. Let me ask, how many binutils developers are using the > current binutils to generate mips dynamic binaries? > What do you mean by MIPS ABI? There are: o32 o64 n32 eabi meabi The last two are embedded. The first, eabi, was designed mostly by cygnus and is the abi for most embedded toolchains. The last is a new abi designed by MIPS that is very close to n32, but also used for embedded. What we should probably do for linux (since that seems to be what you really care about) is to do one of two things: a) take n32, this will ensure that we can deal with sgi programs b) take Sys V with the MIPS extensions this is also sane. I'm open to discussion and other ideas, but you need to be _much_ more specific about what you mean when discussing mips abis. -eric -- Look out behind you!