Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > > They are not in the info pages, but that should probably be considered an > > > accidental omission. Is using something that's documented but doesn't > > > work, to the contrary, any better? > > > > Probably not. It's just that I've never seen actual use of -mel/-meb yet. > > Good -- it means you haven't been watching over my shoulder. ;-) I've > used them several times for big-endian builds with my toolchain, which, as > you may be aware, has been exclusively little-endian so far. > > And they are actually used to implement these "-EL" and "-EB" options. > Frankly I find "-mel" and "-meb" more consistent with the others as "-m*" > generally imply target-specific options. Other gcc targets use IIRC -BE and -LE. It might be worthwile to document -mel/-meb better, use them generally in gcc, and then mark the uppercase options as deprecated. Thiemo
