Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:09:15 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARM EABI directions Message-ID: <0435EF00-62B4-4389-BB3A-3351FC522C34@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <EE066522-388C-45C4-8DB7-E2C7BBB60D69@bsdimp.com> References: <20130227003517.GB7348@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <28404C12-67F3-44F0-AB28-02B749472873@bsdimp.com> <C8B590D8-70D2-41DB-812B-859C0F20F765@kientzle.com> <EE066522-388C-45C4-8DB7-E2C7BBB60D69@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>=20
>>>> +.if ${TARGET_ARCH} !=3D ${MACHINE_ARCH} && ${WMAKE_COMPILER_TYPE} =
=3D=3D "clang"
>>>> +.if (${TARGET_ARCH} =3D=3D "arm" || ${TARGET_ARCH} =3D=3D "armv6") =
&& \
>>>> +${MK_ARM_EABI} !=3D "no"
>>>> +TARGET_ABI=3D gnueabi
>>>> +.else
>>>> +TARGET_ABI=3D unknown
>>>> +.endif
>>>=20
>>> We need to fix the gnueabi issue with arm. machine_arch should =
always be enough to be self-hosting, and while I fixed the armv6 issue, =
this has cropped up in its place :(.
>>=20
>> Personally, I would like to see us switch to gnueabi
>> entirely and drop the configuration options.
>=20
> Me too, but that would mean breaking 9.x binaries on 10.x systems, so =
some thought must be exercised here.
Why? ARM was Tier 2 for FreeBSD 9.x, and the FreeBSD
package builds still don't support ARM packages, so I'm
not convinced that would be a problem.
OTOH, I'm hoping we can get ARM to Tier 1 for 10.x, so
this will be a concern after that point.
> My preference would be to support building eabi binaries only, but =
have a kernel option that would allow execution of oabi binaries.
That would make sense. ISTR a thread discussing whether
it was possible to transparently support both eabi and oabi
syscalls.
> Then again, we are also heading to the soft fp vs vfp issue too=85
<sigh> Yeah.
Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0435EF00-62B4-4389-BB3A-3351FC522C34>