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.
