Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> this has turned far enough that it doesn't make sense to keep
> codesourcery/coldfire list in the loop, so I return discussion to
> port-m68k...
> 
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 04:19:38PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> 
>>>I don't understand the coldfire issue at all.
>>
>>Maybe you should. I don't believe any of the above discussion is
>>relevant.  NetBSD doesn't even support ColdFire. Part of of my my
>>original proposal was that m68k and ColdFire are sufficiently
>>different that for practical purposes they're separate architectures.
> 
> 
> some obvious questions: is there any interest for v4 coldfire support
> for NetBSD?  it is unreasonable to pursue a common 68k lowest-common-
> denominator ABI for NetBSD?
> 
> I'd like to see both.  there is a paucity of packages available for m68k
> ports under netbsd-2-0 and netbsd-2 branches; having a working v4 port
> would make bulkbuilds faster.

I believe that ColdFire should be a separate architecture (MACHINE_ARCH).
It's different enough from m68k that any hope of sharing binaries is slight.


-- 
Matt Thomas                     email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.