Richard Earnshaw wrote: > Don't know. Does a document specifying it even exist? If we are > supporting an ABI, then I think we need to have a publicly available > SPEC.
I disagree with that statement. If a system is sufficiently popular, we probably want to support it -- with or without a specification. For example, if x86 Windows didn't have a public ABI specification, we'd still want to support it. > I don't think so. Certainly NetBSD doesn't; I can't speak for the rest. > In fact, I'm pretty sure that only the old linux ABI uses the FPA. I'm certain VxWorks makes no use of FPA. However, whether it changes to EABI or not is not purely up to the GCC maintainers; Wind River uses the Diab compiler on VxWorks as well, and VxWorks is an environment where stability over time is considered very important. On the other hand, it's going to be a long time before VxWorks gets to GCC 4.7, so there's time to work this out. > Certainly removing support for FPA (and any targets that require it) as > a first step would be an option; but we should also focus on where we > want to get to. I agree with that. But, it would also be interesting to know just how broken that code is. If, in fact, FPA and/or ARM ELF mostly work at present, then there's less call for actually removing (as opposed to deprecating) things. If, on the other hand, they've been broken for several releases, then there's good evidence that nobody really cares about new versions of GCC supporting these things. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713