On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 15:26 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > For EABI, this is done > > > with .cpu, .arch and .fpu directives; for non-EABI you may need to write > > > specs to pass command-line options to the assembler. Creating an > > > arm-rtemseabi or similar target and obsoleting the old-ABI version is what > > > I'd suggest. (Having the target not named *eabi* will make various > > > testcases not run for it; it's unfortunate enough that EABI testcases need > > > to match both arm*-*-*eabi* and arm*-*-symbianelf which is an existing > > > EABI target not matching *eabi*.) > > > > Is there any reason to stick with arm-elf as the basis for > > arm-rtems? It looks like arm-eabi is more generally used > > and thus more tested and better supported. > > My advice is that arm-rtems become a deprecated target like arm-elf and > arm-linux, and that arm-rtemseabi be the new EABI-based target.
Speaking of which, we should probably formally deprecate the old arm-elf derived targets in 4.6 so that we can remove them in 4.7. Similarly, we should deprecate support for the FPA on ARM. R.
