From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 28 11:18:33 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 412F8260 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nibbler.fubar.geek.nz (nibbler.fubar.geek.nz [199.48.134.198]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252C85EE for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bender.lan (97e07ab1.skybroadband.com [151.224.122.177]) by nibbler.fubar.geek.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6E1E5C0B9; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:18:18 +0100 From: Andrew Turner To: Warner Losh Subject: Re: MK_ARM_EABI to retire in current Message-ID: <20140928121818.741e7e7e@bender.lan> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-arm X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:18:33 -0000 On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:40:33 -0600 Warner Losh 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. Andrew