[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #18 from Richard Earnshaw --- Closing this. If there additional issues with self-tests or elsewhere, please create a new bug report with details.
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #17 from Martin Liška --- Richard: Can the bug be marked as resolved?
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw --- Author: rearnsha Date: Tue Oct 23 10:19:15 2018 New Revision: 265420 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265420=gcc=rev Log: [arm] Update default CPUs during configure There are a couple of places in config.gcc where the default CPU is still arm6, but that was removed as a supported CPU earlier this year. This patch fixes those entries. The default CPU for configurations that do not explicitly set a default is now arm7tdmi (so assumes thumb is available). Given that StrongArm is on the deprecated list, this is a better default than we had previously. For NetBSD the default is StrongArm; this is the only remaining port that uses the old ABI and really still carries support for non-thumb based targets. PR target/86383 * config.gcc (arm*-*-netbsdelf*): Default to StrongARM if no CPU specified to configure. (arm*-*-*): Use ARM7TDMI as the target CPU if no default provided. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/config.gcc
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to coypu from comment #14) > Also, after these two patches, my own build of arm--netbsdelf is failing > from this: > configure: error: Pthreads are required to build libgomp > > Looking at config.log, the error is actually: > configure:15118: /tmp/build/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/./gcc/ > -B/usr/local/arm--netbsdelf/bin/ -B/usr/local/arm--netbsdelf/lib/ -isystem > /usr/local/arm--netbsdelf/include -isystem > /usr/local/arm--netbsdelf/sys-include > --sysroot=/home/fly/shark/destdir.shark/ -o conftest -g -O2 conftest.c > -lpthread >&5 > /home/fly/shark/destdir.shark/usr/lib/libpthread.so: undefined reference to > `__modsi3@GCC_3.0' > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > I'm not sure what is the cause of that. My guess is that it's something to do with the symbol versioning. IIRC netbsd provides its own versions of __modsi3 and it probably doesn't have a GCC_3.0 symbol version on it, which then confuses the linker. However, this bug is getting confused as it seems to be a hybrid of oabi and eabi issues. Please separate the two issues out and keep this one for the existing oabi port.
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #14 from coypu --- Also, after these two patches, my own build of arm--netbsdelf is failing from this: configure: error: Pthreads are required to build libgomp Looking at config.log, the error is actually: configure:15118: /tmp/build/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/./gcc/ -B/usr/local/arm--netbsdelf/bin/ -B/usr/local/arm--netbsdelf/lib/ -isystem /usr/local/arm--netbsdelf/include -isystem /usr/local/arm--netbsdelf/sys-include --sysroot=/home/fly/shark/destdir.shark/ -o conftest -g -O2 conftest.c -lpthread >&5 /home/fly/shark/destdir.shark/usr/lib/libpthread.so: undefined reference to `__modsi3@GCC_3.0' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status I'm not sure what is the cause of that.
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #13 from coypu --- I sent this to gcc-patches for netbsd/eabi and stop picking arm6 -mcpu for oabi too: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01256.html for all of arm to stop defaulting to non-existent -mcpu=arm6: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01262.html
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #12 from coypu --- to clarify, I still had trouble building oabi, but it fails elsewhere now.
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #11 from coypu ---
That cross builds with trunk.
For attempting to build oabi it wasn't enough to not specify
target_cpu_cname=arm6, because the default cpu is still arm6.
in gcc/config.gcc:3989 right now
target_cpu_cname=${target_cpu_cname:-arm6}
maybe that needs to be arm8 or something?
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #10 from coypu --- Created attachment 44836 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44836=edit netbsd eabi support
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- Any progress on that please?
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 11.07.2018 11:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >>> >>> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com --- >>> On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 > > --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- > I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I > believe they've > now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been > contributed. > NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. >>> >>> GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been >>> marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. >>> >> >> We verify these ports on real hardware. >> >> NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is >> obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider >> range of ARM CPUs. >> > > Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, > but it is considered deprecated these days. > Shark doesn't use all instructions that are generated by GCC (I forgot the CPU property name of it) and thus it has to be switched to Clang/LLVM. >>> >>> You're not making sense. Please be more explicit as to what you mean >>> and give an example. GCC can generate instructions for ARMv4 and >>> StrongARM (used by the shark) is an ARMv4 part. >>> >>> I've run gcc generated code on shark boards for years and not seen problems. >>> >>> R. >>> >> >> I got a feedback that it's called: armv4t. >> > > From whom? StrongARM is ARMv4. It is *not* ARMv4t as it does not > support Thumb. Whatever, GCC can support both ARMv4 and ARMv4t. > > R. > CC: Joerg who was involved in the work on switch to Clang/LLVM. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #8 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com --- On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >> >> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com --- >> On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe they've now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been contributed. >>> >>> NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A >>> user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre >>> ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. >>> >> >> GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been >> marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. >> > > We verify these ports on real hardware. > > NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is > obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider > range of ARM CPUs. > Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, but it is considered deprecated these days. >>> >>> Shark doesn't use all instructions that are generated by GCC (I forgot >>> the CPU property name of it) and thus it has to be switched to Clang/LLVM. >>> >> >> You're not making sense. Please be more explicit as to what you mean >> and give an example. GCC can generate instructions for ARMv4 and >> StrongARM (used by the shark) is an ARMv4 part. >> >> I've run gcc generated code on shark boards for years and not seen problems. >> >> R. >> > > I got a feedback that it's called: armv4t. > From whom? StrongARM is ARMv4. It is *not* ARMv4t as it does not support Thumb. Whatever, GCC can support both ARMv4 and ARMv4t. R.
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >> >> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com --- >> On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe they've now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been contributed. >>> >>> NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A >>> user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre >>> ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. >>> >> >> GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been >> marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. >> > > We verify these ports on real hardware. > > NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is > obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider > range of ARM CPUs. > Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, but it is considered deprecated these days. >>> >>> Shark doesn't use all instructions that are generated by GCC (I forgot >>> the CPU property name of it) and thus it has to be switched to Clang/LLVM. >>> >> >> You're not making sense. Please be more explicit as to what you mean >> and give an example. GCC can generate instructions for ARMv4 and >> StrongARM (used by the shark) is an ARMv4 part. >> >> I've run gcc generated code on shark boards for years and not seen problems. >> >> R. >> > > I got a feedback that it's called: armv4t. > >From whom? StrongARM is ARMv4. It is *not* ARMv4t as it does not support Thumb. Whatever, GCC can support both ARMv4 and ARMv4t. R.
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 > > --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com --- > On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>> On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >>> >>> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- >>> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe >>> they've >>> now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been >>> contributed. >>> >> >> NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A >> user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre >> ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. >> > > GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been > marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. > We verify these ports on real hardware. NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider range of ARM CPUs. >>> >>> Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, >>> but it is considered deprecated these days. >>> >> >> Shark doesn't use all instructions that are generated by GCC (I forgot >> the CPU property name of it) and thus it has to be switched to Clang/LLVM. >> > > You're not making sense. Please be more explicit as to what you mean > and give an example. GCC can generate instructions for ARMv4 and > StrongARM (used by the shark) is an ARMv4 part. > > I've run gcc generated code on shark boards for years and not seen problems. > > R. > I got a feedback that it's called: armv4t. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com --- On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >> >> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- >> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe >> they've >> now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been >> contributed. >> > > NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A > user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre > ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. > GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. >>> >>> We verify these ports on real hardware. >>> >>> NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is >>> obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider >>> range of ARM CPUs. >>> >> >> Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, >> but it is considered deprecated these days. >> > > Shark doesn't use all instructions that are generated by GCC (I forgot > the CPU property name of it) and thus it has to be switched to Clang/LLVM. > You're not making sense. Please be more explicit as to what you mean and give an example. GCC can generate instructions for ARMv4 and StrongARM (used by the shark) is an ARMv4 part. I've run gcc generated code on shark boards for years and not seen problems. R.
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >> >> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- >> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe >> they've >> now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been >> contributed. >> > > NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A > user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre > ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. > GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. >>> >>> We verify these ports on real hardware. >>> >>> NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is >>> obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider >>> range of ARM CPUs. >>> >> >> Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, >> but it is considered deprecated these days. >> > > Shark doesn't use all instructions that are generated by GCC (I forgot > the CPU property name of it) and thus it has to be switched to Clang/LLVM. > You're not making sense. Please be more explicit as to what you mean and give an example. GCC can generate instructions for ARMv4 and StrongARM (used by the shark) is an ARMv4 part. I've run gcc generated code on shark boards for years and not seen problems. R.
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to coypu from comment #5) > (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2) > > I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe > > they've now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been > > contributed. > > hi, > > I have a big working patch for netbsd/arm eabi. > I didn't test it against trunk/clean it up yet. > (https://v4.freshbsd.org/commit/netbsd/pkgsrc/yfUHHZvopo2aGFGA) > > can I assign this to myself? I think it would be better to just post it to GCC patches. This PR is specifically about the existing netbsd-elf port and shouldn't be conflated with contributions of a new netbsd-eabi port.
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 > > --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- > I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe > they've > now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been > contributed. > NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. >>> >>> GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been >>> marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. >>> >> >> We verify these ports on real hardware. >> >> NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is >> obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider >> range of ARM CPUs. >> > > Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, > but it is considered deprecated these days. > Shark doesn't use all instructions that are generated by GCC (I forgot the CPU property name of it) and thus it has to be switched to Clang/LLVM. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 coypu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||coypu at sdf dot org --- Comment #5 from coypu --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2) > I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe > they've now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been > contributed. hi, I have a big working patch for netbsd/arm eabi. I didn't test it against trunk/clean it up yet. (https://v4.freshbsd.org/commit/netbsd/pkgsrc/yfUHHZvopo2aGFGA) can I assign this to myself?
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe they've now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been contributed. >>> >>> NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A >>> user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre >>> ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. >>> >> >> GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been >> marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. >> > > We verify these ports on real hardware. > > NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is > obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider > range of ARM CPUs. > Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, but it is considered deprecated these days.
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #4 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com --- On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe they've now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been contributed. >>> >>> NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A >>> user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre >>> ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. >>> >> >> GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been >> marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. >> > > We verify these ports on real hardware. > > NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is > obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider > range of ARM CPUs. > Shark's use strongARM cpus, which are ARMv4. That's not been obsoleted, but it is considered deprecated these days.
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >>> >>> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- >>> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe >>> they've >>> now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been >>> contributed. >>> >> >> NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A >> user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre >> ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. >> > > GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been > marked as deprecated for about 3 years now. > We verify these ports on real hardware. NetBSD/shark is prepared to be switched to Clang/LLVM as GCC is obsoleting it and surprisingly LLVM soon might have support for a wider range of ARM CPUs. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #3 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com --- On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >> >> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- >> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe >> they've >> now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been >> contributed. >> > > NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A > user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre > ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. > GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been marked as deprecated for about 3 years now.
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 >> >> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- >> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe >> they've >> now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been >> contributed. >> > > NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A > user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre > ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. > GCC-9 will drop support for pre-armv4 CPUs. Such support has been marked as deprecated for about 3 years now.
Re: [Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 > > --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- > I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe > they've > now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been > contributed. > NetBSD switched on newer ARM CPUs to EABI and keeps compat with OABI. A user is free to build either EABI and OABI for ARMv4+ CPUs. Older pre ARMv4 CPUs use OABI only. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe they've now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of that has been contributed.
[Bug target/86383] [9 Regression] arm-netbsdelf cross compiler fails in selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |9.0 Target Milestone|--- |9.0
