From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@cygnus.com>
To: joel@OARcorp.com
Cc: gas2@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: more on powerpc-rtems ar failure
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:55:00 -0000
Message-id: <199804162155.RAA02037@subrogation.cygnus.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980416164554.26940c-100000@vespucci.advicom.net>
X-SW-Source: 1998/msg00144.html

   Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:49:49 -0500 (CDT)
   From: Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>

   Would this be a general enough change where the target CPU-rtems is based
   on would also be acceptable to have this behavior?  For example, m68k-coff
   and m68k-rtems are essentially the same.  Would it be acceptable to add
   m68k-aout to both?

No, not really.  Very few people are going to want support for both.
You do only because you are distributing the results to large numbers
of people.  It's kind of a hack that m68k-coff builds m68k-ieee
support.

Ian