From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 28 16:00:56 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A8C16A420 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:00:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raj@semihalf.com) Received: from mail.semihalf.com (mail.semihalf.com [83.15.139.206]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7414613C45B for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:00:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raj@semihalf.com) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.semihalf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C353F14405; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:02:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.semihalf.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.semihalf.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13597-09; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:02:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <474D90B4.4010400@semihalf.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:00:52 +0100 From: Rafal Jaworowski MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Olivier Houchard References: <474D8345.30505@semihalf.com> <20071128162655.GA27260@ci0.org> In-Reply-To: <20071128162655.GA27260@ci0.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at semihalf.com Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARM9E issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:00:56 -0000 Olivier Houchard wrote: >> Maybe what I'm seeing is some FreeBSD/arm toolchain problem. I'll look into >> this further, but any comments or hints are appreciated. > > This is a bug in gas. pld should work for ARM_ARCH_5E, however when you > specify -mcpu=arm9e to gas, due to the way it works (by parsing its cpu list > and doing a strncmp(list->cpuname, nameprovided, strlen(nameprovided)), it > will match arm9e-r0, which is not armv5e. I don't know if this has been fixed > in later revisions of binutils, I should check. As a workaround, you can > compile your kernel with "-DCPU_ARM9E -march=armv5te" instead. > Hi Olivier, Thanks for confirmation, I felt it was rather something around the toolchain, as I was seeing warnings about incompatible settings when tried with both -mcpu=arm9e and -march=armv5te, which should be perfectly legal. kind regards, Rafal