fix for arm target.ld

[Mark Salter]

>>>>> 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?

--Mark