MK_ARM_EABI to retire in current

[John Hay]

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:07:34AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> On May 22, 2014, at 3:05 AM, John Hay <jhay at meraka.org.za> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:01:42PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> 
> >> On May 21, 2014, at 1:28 PM, John Hay <jhay at meraka.org.za> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:50:21AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >>>> isn't eabi on the xscale still broken?
> >>> 
> >>> It might still be broken. But there are more brokenness than that. :-(
> >>> By defining WITHOUT_ARM_EABI=yes in src.conf, I can get an AVILA kernel
> >>> built that boots with src from head at around mid December. Latest 10
> >>> and head just give no output, with or without WITHOUT_ARM_EABI defined.
> >> 
> >> Does the same thing happen with make.conf instead of src.conf?
> > 
> > Yes, I have tried both 10 and head with WITHOUT_ARM_EABI=yes and no
> > output after go in redboot. My compile lines look like this:
> > 
> > make TARGET_ARCH=armeb TARGET_CPUTYPE=xscale toolchain
> > make TARGET=arm TARGET_ARCH=armeb buildkernel KERNCONF=AVILA DESTDIR=/arm/
> > 
> > And then in redboot "load -b 0x200000 kernel" to load it with tftp. And
> > then "go".
> > 
> > The "no output" happened somewhere between mid December and beginning
> > of Feb. I determined that before getting side tracked. I'll see in the
> > next day or two if I can narrow that down.
> > 
> > If someone have patches so that WITHOUT_ARM_EABI=yes is not needed
> > anymore, I'll test that too.
> 
> This is with gcc, not clang, right?

The default that the tree will do for the above commands. I did not force
it one way or the other. The kernels that did boot, reported gcc 4.2.1

John

> 
> Warner
> 
> 
> > John
> > 
> >> 
> >> Warner
> >> 
> >>> John
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> -a
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 19 May 2014 08:40, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Greetings,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> MK_ARM_EABI is going to die in current. It is the default for all platforms currently. I???m eliminating it as a build option. It must die because it invisibly (to uname) effects the ABI.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> So, to that end, I see two options:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> (1) Retire and remove oabi support.
> >>>>> (2) Retain oabi support, but change its name to armo and armoeb.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The rough consensus of arm developers I???ve polled now, and in the past, is that we just let oabi support die now that EABI support is working for everybody.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Before I pull the trigger on this, however, I must ask if anybody has a problem with my doing option (1), and if so, what keeps you using oabi.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Comments?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Warner
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> freebsd-arm at freebsd.org mailing list
> >>>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> freebsd-arm at freebsd.org mailing list
> >>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm
> >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"