This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Revised patch] Rework MIPS command-line handling writes:
> At 23 Jul 2002 18:04:32 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > writes:
> > > At 23 Jul 2002 17:42:00 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > > > Hmm.  So, does gas then produce correct meabi binaries 'naturally' in
> > > > > this case?
> > > > 
> > > > Sort of.  The only checks of the ABI in gas are for:
> > > 
> > > Err, so, does it handle/produce all of the relocations, etc. specified
> > > by that ABI properly?  (doesn't sound like it, from what you said...)
> > 
> > Dunno off-hand.  That was "sort of" as in "as well as gas knows how".
> > I certainly can't claim to have audited gas for ABI compliance.
> Well, if gas knows how 'well enough' it should support the flag.

But to turn your own question back on you, does it?  Adding -mabi=eabi
at this stage might give the wrong impression.

> If there's no reason to add that special case, then best to avoid it
> up front.

If we did add -mabi=meabi now, it would be a no-op, i.e. the same as
specifying no -mabi switch at all.  All the other -mabi flags leave some
sort of trace in the object file, but -mabi=meabi wouldn't.  So MEABI is
going to be the odd one out one way or the other.

It would be nice to have some way of identifying MEABI code too.
I just think -mabi=meabi should wait until there is.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]