On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:55:53AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: > >powerpc-*-rtemsspe* would be OK. > > > >powerpc-*-eabisimspe* is pretty ugly though. > > > After I sent this, I saw in another response that powerpcspe*-*-* > was proposed. Is that clearer?
Yes, it does not have part of the architecture name in the OS field ;-) We can support both: we need to support powerpc*-*-*spe* because that is what people use today, but we can support powerpcspe-*-* as well. > For rtems, we already used versioned triplets. powerpc-rtems4.12 > for example. owerpcspe-rtems4.12 seems more correct because spe > is part of the CPU architecture. > > Otherwise, would it be powerpc-rtems4.12spe or powerpc-rtemsspe4.12. > Both of those are pretty ugly and confuse the third part. I agree. People wanting to match either can use powerpc*-x-x (which they likely already have because of powerpc64, powerpc64le, powerpcle!) So if you need to define a new target triple anyway, powerpcspe-*-* is probably the way to go. Segher
