From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6365 invoked by alias); 1 May 2017 16:11:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6271 invoked by uid 89); 1 May 2017 16:11:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=joel, Joel, powerpc-*-rtemsspe*, powerpc*rtemsspe* X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 May 2017 16:11:22 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v41GBEBr028177; Mon, 1 May 2017 11:11:15 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id v41GBDvD028173; Mon, 1 May 2017 11:11:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 16:11:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Joel Sherrill Cc: Joseph Myers , Andrew Jenner , David Edelsohn , GCC Development , Olivier Hainque , Sandra Loosemore , Arnaud Charlet , Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: PowerPC SPE maintainership (was Re: Obsolete powerpc*-*-*spe*) Message-ID: <20170501161112.GN19687@gate.crashing.org> References: <58A63B91.1040102@codesourcery.com> <452E2837-FC8A-4DA2-A2B9-F58151841F58@adacore.com> <45cf27b1-2e27-460c-cb32-3be93f16b6d2@codesourcery.com> <7b2eb145-f07a-bced-9ff4-941aa12521d1@codesourcery.com> <20170428231544.GF19687@gate.crashing.org> <672bb7fd-e2dd-85a4-ad05-c6cce47b7223@oarcorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <672bb7fd-e2dd-85a4-ad05-c6cce47b7223@oarcorp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:55:53AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: > >powerpc-*-rtemsspe* would be OK. > > > >powerpc-*-eabisimspe* is pretty ugly though. > > > After I sent this, I saw in another response that powerpcspe*-*-* > was proposed. Is that clearer? Yes, it does not have part of the architecture name in the OS field ;-) We can support both: we need to support powerpc*-*-*spe* because that is what people use today, but we can support powerpcspe-*-* as well. > For rtems, we already used versioned triplets. powerpc-rtems4.12 > for example. owerpcspe-rtems4.12 seems more correct because spe > is part of the CPU architecture. > > Otherwise, would it be powerpc-rtems4.12spe or powerpc-rtemsspe4.12. > Both of those are pretty ugly and confuse the third part. I agree. People wanting to match either can use powerpc*-x-x (which they likely already have because of powerpc64, powerpc64le, powerpcle!) So if you need to define a new target triple anyway, powerpcspe-*-* is probably the way to go. Segher