More ARM binutils fuckage
Wed Dec 6 21:54:00 GMT 2006
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I don't think MV's kernel is any different in this area, but I'm
> not authoritative.
> > You pass your old-ABI compiler the option -mabi=aapcs-linux, which works
> > fine with my gcc 4.1 old-ABI toolchain and is exactly what mainline 2.6
> > does.
> I don't recommend doing this. The two compilers (...gnu-gcc
> -mabi=aapcs-linux and ...gnueabi-gcc) do not have exactly the same
> configuration; I don't know for sure what might be different between
> them, but I do know we only expect EABI compliance from the EABI
> compilers. -mabi=aapcs-linux versus -mabi=aapcs was mainly for
> interoperation between arm-none-eabi-gcc and
In fact, the kernel doesn't care much about EABI full compliance. The
only requirement on the kernel to be able to run EABI userspace is to
have the same structure member alignment and function argument layout as
the "true" EABI compliance so the kernel and user space understand each
other across syscall boundaries. And using -mabi=aapcs worked just fine
for that so far regardless of the gcc config.
If that behavior was not to hold true then gcc should not accept the
conflicting -mabi argument. But that would be unfortunate if it
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
More information about the crossgcc