On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Nicholas Clark wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 11:16:01PM -0800, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> > userland binaries should be in the same "port".  (that still leaves the
> > question of chips like the MIPS that can run both big- and little-endian,
> > but let's leave that aside for the moment.)
> 
> Maybe I misread your intent, but to me your exact words imply that there
> will never be a big endian arm port.
> 
> I don't know if I'm repeating something already known here, but there
> is already a big endian arm linux port for the Intel IXP1200

Hmm.  I was wondering whether there had ever been any machines that used
the big-endian ARMs.

> I don't know if this affects NetBSD thinking.

If nothing else, it probably means that a merged ARM MACHINE_ARCH should
probably be called "armel" rather than "arm".

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>