Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> Change powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu to powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu so that
>> we also require the 64bit of PowerPC to work.
>
> To be clear, you're suggesting that we say
> "powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu", but mean that both it's 32-bit and 64-bit
> modes should work?
>
> That makes sense to me. What about MIPS/MIPS64?
I'm glad you asked ;) Although you probably won't be.
I must admit I've always felt mips-elf to be a less-than-ideal
replacement for mips-sgi-irix6.5. The former is 32-bit only, while the
latter includes o32, n32 and n64, giving both 32-bit and 64-bit coverage.
I fully agree with removing mips-sgi-irix6.5 as a primary platform,
but I think mipsisa64-elf might be a better replacement than mips-elf.
By default, mipsisa64-elf includes libraries for {-mips32,-mips64} x
{-EL,-EB} x {-msoft-float,-mhard-float}. (And FWIW, I tend to test
all eight, and the different multilibs show up different problems.)
I take David's point about mips{,el}-linux-gnu being another alternative.
I suppose mipsisa64-elf has the advantage of being a simulator target
than anyone can test. On the other hand, mips{,el}-linux-gnu allows
proper Fortran, libstdc++ and Java testing, for instance. I can see
arguments both ways. However, by the same reasoning as above, I'd prefer
mips64{,el}-linux-gnu over mips{,el}-linux-gnu because the former includes
n32 and n64 as well as o32.
Richard
