Re: fix for arm target.ld

[Mark Salter <msalter at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> Mark Salter writes:

>>>>> Andrew Lunn writes:
>>> Ah now I see, gcc-3.x doesn't define "arm" (still using gcc-2.95 here).
>> And gcc-2.95 is still the "supported" compiler for arm, not gcc 3.x.

>> Does the section have to be called .note.arm.ident?

> Yes.

> Can it have
>> another name without arm in it?

> No.

> We could probably use some preprocessor gymnastics to avoid the
> problem. OTOH, anything wrong with Andrew's approach?
                                     ^^^^^^
                                     Robin

--Mark