Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 08:48:58 +0200 From: John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MK_ARM_EABI to retire in current Message-ID: <20140522064858.GA93919@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20140521194643.GH43976@funkthat.com> References: <C66667D9-2F5E-44E0-AF04-E9DFE70BAF5A@gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonSHCyD-8jpK0EPkctVwpJ%2BPu4dfBkvATdOS3yrN4ttVg@mail.gmail.com> <20140521192807.GA48338@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140521194643.GH43976@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:46:43PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > John Hay wrote this message on Wed, May 21, 2014 at 21:28 +0200: > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:50:21AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > isn't eabi on the xscale still broken? > > > > It might still be broken. But there are more brokenness than that. :-( > > By defining WITHOUT_ARM_EABI=yes in src.conf, I can get an AVILA kernel > > built that boots with src from head at around mid December. Latest 10 > > and head just give no output, with or without WITHOUT_ARM_EABI defined. > > Did you apply the patch I referenced in: > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140219172938.GH34851@funkthat.com > > that was sent to you? This should fix 10, and HEAD should be fine > unless there has been a regression in the last few months... I haven't > worked on the AVILA since no one is interested in helping me... I did, although I did not seem to need it anymore in -current/HEAD. Like I said above, by defining WITHOUT_ARM_EABI=yes I could get an AVILA kernel that boots with src from head at around mid December. I did most of my testing there because I thought that if I could get that to work, one could figure out what is missing in 10. I just tried 10 again just now because of all the arm merges that happened. I got distracted by other work a bit, but would really like to have AVILA and CAMBRIA working. I must still test where after mid December it broke. I know it was broken in Feb. John > > > > On 19 May 2014 08:40, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> 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. > > -- > John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 > > "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140522064858.GA93919>