Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:26:38 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> Cc: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Reminder: Removal of WITHOUT_ARM_EABI Message-ID: <1377271598.1111.78.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <20130820091527.42127170@bender.Home> References: <20130820091527.42127170@bender.Home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 09:15 +0100, Andrew Turner wrote: > I am planning on removing WITHOUT_ARM_EABI before 10.0 is released. As > this is planned on happening soon it this change is likely to happen > within the next two weeks, after a short heads up. > > This is a reminder for people who have not yet moved to the ARM EABI to > do so now as their build will break when this option is removed. > It turns out that on DreamPlug (armv5te) the unit won't boot all the way to multiuser mode with EABI, building with gcc or clang. I first discovered this a few days ago when I realized I was still building with OABI on dreamplug and tried to switch. I tried going back to a revision in late July but that didn't make any difference. The before getting any further with bisecting I heard from Ilya Bakulin on irc that the problems I'm seeing (hanging in rc.d/initrandom and rc.d/var) go back to at least April. The rc.d/initrandom problem seems to be while running the 'df' command to "generate entropy." In rc.d/var the problem is while running newfs on /dev/md0, and I can more readily confirm that -- if I use ^C to get past the hangs in rc.d processing it'll limp its way to multiuser mode, and if you manually try to "newfs /dev/md0" it definitely hangs the same way. When it's hung in that state, a ^T gives no info, but a ^C does break out of the hang. I've been unable to get any more info about how/why it's hung. I can understand a desire to not let any 10.0 release get into the wild with OABI support, but I'm not sure that removing the ability to even try OABI to see if it fixes a problem is a good idea. EABI just doesn't have enough testing to declare that it's solid (because clearly it's not yet solid). Can we declare that OABI isn't supported without removing the ability to fall back to it for testing purposes? I wouldn't mind if enabling it requires something like WITH_UNSUPPORTED_OABI_FOR_TESTING. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1377271598.1111.78.camel>