On 23/05/2019 15:11, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 23/05/2019 15:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> 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. >> > > > Looking at what GAS does with this flag, it simply causes the assembler > to create an empty .arm.atpcs debug section. On that basis, I would > expect that it's then safe (and correct) to remove this: the EABI is not > the ATPCS. > > R. >
Finally, I need the names of the authors and their email addresses in a format suitable for the ChangeLog file. As far as I can tell, that means: Yourself Matt Thomas Matthew Green Nick Hudson R.