Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:05:30 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> Cc: freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MK_ARM_EABI to retire in current Message-ID: <20140929040530.GH43300@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140928121818.741e7e7e@bender.lan> References: <C66667D9-2F5E-44E0-AF04-E9DFE70BAF5A@gmail.com> <20140928121818.741e7e7e@bender.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Turner wrote this message on Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:18 +0100:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:40:33 -0600
> Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > MK_ARM_EABI is going to die in current. It is the default for all
> > platforms currently. I?m eliminating it as a build option. It must
> > die because it invisibly (to uname) effects the ABI.
> >
> > So, to that end, I see two options:
> >
> > (1) Retire and remove oabi support.
> > (2) Retain oabi support, but change its name to armo and armoeb.
> >
> > The rough consensus of arm developers I?ve polled now, and in the
> > past, is that we just let oabi support die now that EABI support is
> > working for everybody.
> >
> > Before I pull the trigger on this, however, I must ask if anybody has
> > a problem with my doing option (1), and if so, what keeps you using
> > oabi.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> As far as I know all the problems with ARM EABI on armeb mentioned
> in this thread have been fixed. I think we should now retire the oabi
> support and remove MK_ARM_EABI.
Yeh, I don't know of any issues, though my AVILA board isn't 100% stable
as I did get this recently:
panic: Fatal abort
panic: mtx_lock() by idle thread 0xc0e66320 on sleep mutex eventhandler @ /usr/src.avila/sys/kern/subr_eventhandler.c:251
But, I don't think this is related to EABI...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140929040530.GH43300>