On 23/05/2019 17:01, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > 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. >
Argh, there's a final issue. We can't find a copyright assignment against your email address. Do you have one? R.