On July 9, 2020 3:43:19 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >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.
I think for primary platforms it is important to be as specific as possible since certain regressions are supposed to block a release. That's less of an issue for secondary platforms but it's still a valid concern there as well for build issues. Richard. >Thanks, David
