Hello all
We have a target system with an old Linux environment that we can not easily
upgrade to a new one.
The actual development system (linux) has more or less the same age (prox. 10
year)
We intend to do the following:
- Use a new distribution as development environment (linux)
- Still
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.
--
To
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
also need
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 in
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
