On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 03:54:35PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Register/parameter assignment: How is that relevant to the kernel
> interface, if the kernel itself and modules are all EABI? The system
> call interface is a fixed set of registers.
No it is not. The syscall interface obeys the ABI
On Fri, 15 May 2009, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 14:51 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >
> > Eek, can you say a bit more about the ARM EABI mismatch?
> >
> > I would like to run a shiny modern ARM EABI kernel and userspace, but
> > also need to run one or two OABI binaries (from
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Structure packing: Isn't that basically the same set of fixups that
> need to be done for 32-bit compatibility on 64-bit kernels? Could it
> even use the same code - sneakily replacing "32" with OABI and "64"
> with EABI?
On second thoughts, I guess there may be a few fixups
George G. Davis wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:55:57PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:51:05PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > Eek, can you say a bit more about the ARM EABI mismatch?
> > >
> > > I would like to run a shiny modern ARM EABI kernel and userspace, but
> >
Hi,
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:55:57PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:51:05PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Eek, can you say a bit more about the ARM EABI mismatch?
> >
> > I would like to run a shiny modern ARM EABI kernel and userspace, but
> > also need to run one or two
David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> It was just a note of caution that sometimes we _do_ change the ABI.
>
> I'm not 100% sure offhand whether the EABI kernel can support OABI
> userspace; I didn't think so though.
>
He could try CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT=y, at least in 2.6.28+.
No thumb though.
Regards.
--
T
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:51:05PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 13:50 +0200, muzu...@gmx.net wrote:
> > > Questions:
> > > - Can I run an application compiled with gcc ABI 2.95 on a kernel
> > > compiled with gcc ABI 3.4?
> >
> > Yes. The kernel ABI
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 14:51 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> Eek, can you say a bit more about the ARM EABI mismatch?
>
> I would like to run a shiny modern ARM EABI kernel and userspace, but
> also need to run one or two OABI binaries (from the gcc 2.95 era) on
> the same kernel which I cannot rec
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 13:50 +0200, muzu...@gmx.net wrote:
> > Questions:
> > - Can I run an application compiled with gcc ABI 2.95 on a kernel
> > compiled with gcc ABI 3.4?
>
> Yes. The kernel ABI never changes in a backward-incompatible fashion.
> Unless you try switchin
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 13:50 +0200, muzu...@gmx.net wrote:
> Questions:
> - Can I run an application compiled with gcc ABI 2.95 on a kernel
> compiled with gcc ABI 3.4?
Yes. The kernel ABI never changes in a backward-incompatible fashion.
Unless you try switching your kernel to ARM EABI and don't u
10 matches
Mail list logo
