On 23/05/2019 15:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 20/05/2019 20:24, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 4/9/19 10:36 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>> On 09/04/2019 16:04, Jeff Law wrote: >>>> On 4/8/19 9:17 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote: >>>>> Pinging again in the hope of getting the patch in, I'd like to have >>>>> less outstanding patches :) (I have quite a few and new releases >>>>> can become painful!) >>>>> >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog >>>>> >>>>> config.gcc (arm*-*-netbsdelf*) Add support for EABI configuration >>>>> config.host (arm*-*-netbsd*): Build driver-arm.o >>>>> config/arm/netbsd-eabi.h: New file. >>>>> config/arm/netbsd-elf.h >>>>> config/netbsd-elf.h: Define SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS. >>>>> >>>>> libgcc/ChangeLog >>>>> >>>>> config.host (arm*-*-netbsdelf*): Add support for EABI configuration >>>>> config/arm/t-netbsd: LIB1ASMFUNCS: Append to existing set. >>>>> HOST_LIBGCC2_CFLAGS: workaround possible bug >>>>> config/arm/t-netbsd-eabi: New file. >>>> So we're well into stage4 which means technically it's too late for >>>> something like this. However, given it's limited scope I won't object >>>> if the ARM port maintainers want to go forward. Otherwise I'll queue it >>>> for gcc-10. >>>> >>>> jeff >>>> >>> >>> I was about to approve this (modulo removing the now obsolete >>> FPU_DEFAULT macro), until I noticed that it also modifies the generic >>> NetBSD code as well. I'm certainly not willing to approve that myself >>> at this late stage, but if one of the NetBSD OS maintainers wants to >>> step up and do so, I'll happily take the Arm back-end code as that's not >>> a primary or secondary target. >> So is removal of the FPUTYPE_DEFAULT stuff all that's needed for this to >> go forward now that Jason T has chimed in? >> >> jeff >> >> > > Very close. I was just doing a last pass through the patch to make that > small edit when I noticed this in config/arm/netbsd-eabi.h: > > > #define SUBTARGET_EXTRA_ASM_SPEC \ > "-matpcs ..." > > Why is the assembler unconditionally passed -matpcs for an eabi > configuration? That sounds broken. > > R. >
Looking at what GAS does with this flag, it simply causes the assembler to create an empty .arm.atpcs debug section. On that basis, I would expect that it's then safe (and correct) to remove this: the EABI is not the ATPCS. R.
