Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:04 +0200 From: John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MK_ARM_EABI to retire in current Message-ID: <20140522090504.GA22488@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <95AD97BA-AA48-4BBF-845C-D0CB585ACAA3@bsdimp.com> References: <C66667D9-2F5E-44E0-AF04-E9DFE70BAF5A@gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonSHCyD-8jpK0EPkctVwpJ%2BPu4dfBkvATdOS3yrN4ttVg@mail.gmail.com> <20140521192807.GA48338@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <95AD97BA-AA48-4BBF-845C-D0CB585ACAA3@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:01:42PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > On May 21, 2014, at 1:28 PM, John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za> wrote: > > > 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. > > Does the same thing happen with make.conf instead of src.conf? Yes, I have tried both 10 and head with WITHOUT_ARM_EABI=yes and no output after go in redboot. My compile lines look like this: make TARGET_ARCH=armeb TARGET_CPUTYPE=xscale toolchain make TARGET=arm TARGET_ARCH=armeb buildkernel KERNCONF=AVILA DESTDIR=/arm/ And then in redboot "load -b 0x200000 kernel" to load it with tftp. And then "go". The "no output" happened somewhere between mid December and beginning of Feb. I determined that before getting side tracked. I'll see in the next day or two if I can narrow that down. If someone have patches so that WITHOUT_ARM_EABI=yes is not needed anymore, I'll test that too. John > > Warner > > > John > > > >> > >> > >> -a > >> > >> > >> 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. > >>> > >>> Comments? > >>> > >>> Warner > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list > >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm > >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140522090504.GA22488>