Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 10:15:25 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: mexas@bristol.ac.uk Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compilation for ARM, patches Message-ID: <1407082525.56408.267.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <201408031011.s73ABrDH079670@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <201408031011.s73ABrDH079670@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2014-08-03 at 11:11 +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > >From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> > >Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 14:38:45 -0600 > > > >Sorry it took so long, but I've finally gotten these patches committed, > >as of r269395, thanks for submitting them. You were right about the > >nested .fnstart being an error. I learned more about the unwind info > >while working on the c++ exception bugs -- multiple .fnstart without > >a .fnend in between can't be expressed correctly at all, the tools are > >right to complain about that. > > > >I made some changes to the EENTRY() stuff, if I didn't get it right and > >it needs more changes to compile with your newer binutils, just let me > >know and I'll adjust as needed. > > > >I also committed the .arch_extension for ti_smc.S, which actually > >required changing our base binutils to recognize .arch_extension (but it > >was worth it, because if we start correcting our code now it will be > >ready when we update our tools in base). > > > >-- Ian > > Just to clarify, is this for clang or for GCC, or both? > > Thanks > > Anton It's actually, more than anything, "for the future." The code was compiling as-is (obviously) using our current base toolchains, but Stepan was trying to use newer tools (to get some features he needed) and he ran into these problems in our code. Fixing them now means we'll have less to fix all at once when we move to newer tools in base. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1407082525.56408.267.camel>