From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30079 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2011 18:44:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 30054 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2011 18:44:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:44:34 +0000 From: "oleg.endo@t-online.de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/50694] SH Target: SH2A little endian does not actually work Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:44:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: oleg.endo@t-online.de X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg02151.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694 --- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-20 18:44:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > I'll send in a patch with a couple of other cosmetic changes later, OK? > > Please go for it. ..or maybe just leave it as it is :T The change I was suggesting opens up another problem with multilib and endian config / selection. I think instead of adding / implementing the endian restrictions it would be more useful to expand little endian support in binutils and drop the endian restrictions in gcc altogether once binutils fully support it. What do you think? Would that make more sense in the end?