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
