Re: Deciding new arm EABI port name

[Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:20:00 +0200, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:

> Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> 
>> [quoted text muted]
> I think we can restrict ourselves to most useful, popular
> ones (i.e., the ones that can/will be actively maintained):
> 
> arm                    -> arm4, le, glibc, oabi-hard-float
> arm-softfloat     -> arm4, le, glibc, oabi-soft-float
> strongarm         -> arm4, le, glibc, oabi-hard-float, -mcpu=strongarm1100
> ...  other strongarm variations
> xscale                -> arm5, le, glibc, oabi-hard-float, -mcpu=xscale
> ...  other scale variations
> arm-uclibc         -> arm4, le, uclibc, oabi-hard-float
> ...  other variations based on uclibc
> armeb                -> arm4, be, glibc, oabi-hard-float
> armeb-softfloat -> arm4, be, glibc, oabi-soft-float
> ...  other bigendian variations

New archs for different -mcpu values is severe overkill.

> This all to be replaced later by:
> 
> arm-eabi            -> arm4, le, glibc, eabi-soft-float
> arm-uclibc-eabi -> arm4, le, uclibc, eabi-soft-float
> strongarm-eabi -> arm4, le, glibc, eabi-soft-float, -mcpu=strongarm1100
> ... other strongarm variations
> xscale-eabi        -> arm5, le, glibc, eabi-soft-float, -mcpu=xscale
> ... other xscale variations
> 
>> [quoted text muted]
> Pjotr

Didn't Catalin say that EABI on arm4 was not possible? That eliminates
three of the above variations already.