On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:07 AM Matthias Klose <d...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/9/20 1:58 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:03 AM Matthias Klose <d...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/criteria.html lists the little endian platform
> >> first
> >> as a primary target, however it's not mentioned for GCC 9 and GCC 10. Just
> >> an
> >> omission?
> >>
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00854.html suggests
> >> that
> >> the little endian platform should be mentioned, and maybe the big endian
> >> platform should be dropped?
> >>
> >> Jakub suggested to fix that for GCC 9 and GCC 10, and get a consensus for
> >> GCC 11.
> >
> > Why are you so insistent to drop big endian? No. Please leave this alone.
>
> No, I don't leave this alone. The little endian target is dropped in GCC 9
> and
> GCC 10. Is this really what you intended to do?
No, it's not dropped. Some people are being pedantic about the name,
which is why Bill added {,le}. powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu means
everything. If you want to add {,le} back, that's fine. But there
always is some variant omitted, and that doesn't mean it is ignored.
The more that one over-specifies and enumerates some variants, the
more that it implies the other variants intentionally are ignored.
I would appreciate that we would separate the discussion about
explicit reference to {,le} from the discussion about dropping the big
endian platform.
Thanks, David
