On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:42:58PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:

 > 	from the following comment, i believe we should split evbsh3
 > 	into evbsh3el and evbsh3eb (MACHINE_ARCH will be separate too).
 > 	http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sh3/2000/10/20/0002.html
 > 
 > 	there are couple of questions:
 > 	- is sys/arch/evbsh3/evbsh3/shb.c really dependent to evbsh3?
 > 	  should we move it to sys/arch/sh3/sh3?
 > 	- is "sh3" a good name?  "i386" is okay then we should be okay :-)
 > 	  "superh"?  "hitachi-sh"?

superh would be good, I think.  We're regretting the "i386" name.

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>