Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:23:05 +0600 From: Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld@narod.ru> To: mexas@bristol.ac.uk, ian@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compilation for ARM, patches Message-ID: <53DE1B99.70805@narod.ru> In-Reply-To: <201408031011.s73ABrDH079670@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <201408031011.s73ABrDH079670@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Anton, For clang. -Stepan Anton Shterenlikht wrote: >> From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> >> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 14:38:45 -0600 >> >> Sorry it took so long, but I've finally gotten these patches committed, >> as of r269395, thanks for submitting them. You were right about the >> nested .fnstart being an error. I learned more about the unwind info >> while working on the c++ exception bugs -- multiple .fnstart without >> a .fnend in between can't be expressed correctly at all, the tools are >> right to complain about that. >> >> I made some changes to the EENTRY() stuff, if I didn't get it right and >> it needs more changes to compile with your newer binutils, just let me >> know and I'll adjust as needed. >> >> I also committed the .arch_extension for ti_smc.S, which actually >> required changing our base binutils to recognize .arch_extension (but it >> was worth it, because if we start correcting our code now it will be >> ready when we update our tools in base). >> >> -- Ian > > Just to clarify, is this for clang or for GCC, or both? > > Thanks > > Anton >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53DE1B99.70805>