Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:37:50PM +1100, Oliver O'Halloran wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool >> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:08:40AM +1100, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> >> Question, are there any fundamental reasons we shouldn't use the ELFv2 >> >> ABI to build big endian kernels if the compiler supports it? >> > >> > No one uses ELFv2 for BE in production, and it isn't thoroughly tested >> > at all, not even regularly tested. "Not supported", as far as GCC is >> > concerned (or any of the distros AFAIK). >> >> Is this actually unsupported by gcc? > > It may or may not work. We of course try to keep it working, or make > it work if it doesn't now. But it isn't regularly tested, and it isn't > a target that is considered for the release criteria (see > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/criteria.html -- powerpc64{,le}-linux, i.e. > ABIv1 for BE, ABIv2 for LE).
It doesn't actually say that though. It just says powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. So how is someone, say the musl folks, supposed to know that BE ABIv2 is not supported? cheers
