Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> writes:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:09:59AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Index: gcc/config.gcc
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- gcc/config.gcc 2011-05-28 09:00:32.000000000 +0100
>> > +++ gcc/config.gcc 2011-05-28 09:00:45.000000000 +0100
>> > @@ -240,6 +240,7 @@ case ${target} in
>> > i[34567]86-*-interix3* \
>> > | score-* \
>> > | *-*-solaris2.8* \
>> > + | mips*-*-openbsd* \
>> > )
>> > if test "x$enable_obsolete" != xyes; then
>> > echo "*** Configuration ${target} is obsolete." >&2
>>
>> Would you mind keeping the list sorted alphabetically?
>
> Hmm, this still woudl match mips64el-unknown-openbsd4.9 and
> mips64-unknown-openbsd4.9, right?
Yes, in the trivial sense that those target names match the glob.
But configuring for those targets would generate the same code as
mips-openbsd and mipsel-openbsd; they wouldn't generate 64-bit code.
There is no separate 64-bit MIPS OpenBSD configuration in FSF sources.
Richard
