RFA: Build ARM eabi objects by default

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@false.org
Wed Mar 16 20:13:00 GMT 2005


On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:16:22PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 16:54, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > A customer of ours noticed that invoking arm-eabi-as generates binaries that
> > aren't marked as EABI ver4.  It makes sense to me to try to get the default
> > options right, if we're being invoked by hand instead of by gcc.
> > 
> > Is this patch OK?  Tested by running the gas testsuite on arm-elf,
> > arm-linuxeabi, and arm-eabi; and by inspecting the default object flags on
> > each of those platforms.
> 
> 2005-03-16  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>
> 
>         * configure.tgt: Set emulation for arm-*-eabi*.
>         * config/tc-arm.c (meabi_flags): Check EABI_DEFAULT.
>         * config/te-armeabi.h: New file.
>         * config/te-armlinuxeabi.h (EABI_DEFAULT): Define.
>         * config/te-symbian.h: Include "te-armeabi.h".
> 
> This is OK.  However,
> 
> diff -N config/te-armeabi.h
> --- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
> +++ config/te-armeabi.h 16 Mar 2005 15:46:34 -0000
> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> +/* The EABI requires the use of VFP.  */
> +#define FPU_DEFAULT FPU_ARCH_VFP_V2
> 
> You might want to look at whether the code in md_begin() is doing the
> right thing for you here.

Could you clarify what you mean by "the right thing"?  I think it will;
for Linux we will use FPU_DEFAULT, and for arm-eabi we will try the
processor and then fall back to FPU_DEFAULT if no processor is
specified.

Hmm, I see that may not work quite right in the arm-eabi case... man,
this is twisty.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC



More information about the Binutils mailing list