Subject: MACHINE_ARCH on mips
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/25/1998 12:50:12
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Todd Vierling wrote:
: : >MACHINE_ARCH SHOULD SPECIFY A COMPATIBLE SET OF BINARIES, AND IS DOCUMENTED
: : >TO DO SO. That's a far more long-standing promise than the mips platforms
: : >have even existed.
: : Nobody disagrees that we need to distinguish both MACHINE_ARCH and
: : MACHINE_ARCH_ENDIAN (or whatever it ends up being called).
OK... Either everyone went on vacation, or the only _dissenter_ that I can
see to my proposal to modify the valuse of "mips" for LE and BE machines
that I see thinks the problem has been `solved' and I went away.
I still haven't heard what keeping both little-endian and big-endian
architectures under one MACHINE_ARCH gains the developer and user beyond
slightly simpler organization of include and main tree source files.
I also still haven't heard why using more than one value to identify a
compatible set of binaries is better than using only one, and why breaking
existing promises of compatibility is better than keeping them.
Oh, and can someone run `uname -m' on an ULTRIX, OSF/1, and Digital UNIX box
on a mips processor and verify what it prints? Also, if anyone can verify
the output of `uname -m' on NeWS stations running NeWS-OS (I believe they
-- Todd Vierling (Personal email@example.com; Bus. firstname.lastname@example.org)