On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 06:14:02AM +0900 ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote... > >>>>> In <200109210041.f8L0fFs09672@mule.m17n.org> > >>>>> NIIBE Yutaka <gniibe@m17n.org> wrote: > >> However, according to Hitachi, the ABI is different between SH3 and > >> SH4. Please check out programming manuals of SH3 and SH4. > So, We should migrate from old binary tree (binary-sh) to > new binary trees (binary-sh3, binary-sh4, binary-sh3eb and > binary-sh4eb). > > Almost all binary-sh packages ware built by Oliver M. Bolzer > <oliver@debian.org>, YAEGASHI Takeshi <t@keshi.org> and me. > What do you think about this Oliver and Takeshi? I havn't even powered on my SH machines in some time due to travel and exams, so I'm not really in a position to tell, but are 4 archs really neccersary? How many people will use them ? splitting the binary-sh in 4 incompatible arch seems to be too much IMHO, not only for the porting and autobuilding (SH isn't very fast as we know) but also for the FTP archives and the mirrors. Because of this overhead we don't have an i586 tree, and that's good. An all SH3 environment will work on a SH4, but I imagine that's insufficient for many people because they won't be able to develop native SH4 stuff. Dropping SH3 is not an option, too. How about the endianess? If I'm not wrong, the current tree is little endian. Are really THAT many using SHx in big endian that it justifies having another tree? Nothing against them but FOUR trees is just too much. I think we should try to agree to a maximum of TWO trees, one for SH3, one for SH4. Otherwise, the migration path seems reasonable. -- Oliver M. Bolzer oliver@gol.com GPG (PGP) Fingerprint = 621B 52F6 2AC1 36DB 8761 018F 8786 87AD EF50 D1FF
Attachment:
pgp46HLsb47AX.pgp
Description: PGP signature