On 10 December 2014 at 22:14, Maciej W. Rozycki <ma...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> > As noted in 0/3 ideally we'd handle all ELF flavours with a single >> > binary. Then we could have two system configurations only, mips|mipsel (a >> > limited configuration for 32-bit host optimisation) and mips64|mips64el (a >> > full configuration). >> >> I think this is the right way to go. > > Except that apart from coming to an agreement someone has to make it > happen yet. ;) Ah, but I'm happy with the current state of the codebase... >> > The changes I propose here do not preclude it from happening in >> > the future, they are merely intended to bring some order to what we have >> > now. >> >> The problem is that adding new QEMU executables is effectively >> extending our user-facing interface. We really shouldn't do that >> in the wrong way if we can avoid it (it's hard to undo later >> without breaking peoples' setups). > > Fair enough, I want to move forward though. Would it make you happy if I > dropped the new -softmmu configs and made mipsn32|mipsn32el and > mipsn64|mipsn64el only accept -user configs instead (failing gracefully > rather than abruptly as mipsn32|mipsn32el do now)? Er, I'm not sure what you mean there. Trying a softmmu config for mipsn32 or mipsn32el fails gracefully already: manooth$ (cd build/mips && ../../configure --target-list=mipsn32-softmmu) ERROR: Unknown target name 'mipsn32-softmmu' thanks -- PMM
