On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > For EABI, this is done > > with .cpu, .arch and .fpu directives; for non-EABI you may need to write > > specs to pass command-line options to the assembler. Creating an > > arm-rtemseabi or similar target and obsoleting the old-ABI version is what > > I'd suggest. (Having the target not named *eabi* will make various > > testcases not run for it; it's unfortunate enough that EABI testcases need > > to match both arm*-*-*eabi* and arm*-*-symbianelf which is an existing > > EABI target not matching *eabi*.) > > Is there any reason to stick with arm-elf as the basis for > arm-rtems? It looks like arm-eabi is more generally used > and thus more tested and better supported.
My advice is that arm-rtems become a deprecated target like arm-elf and arm-linux, and that arm-rtemseabi be the new EABI-based target. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
