From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
To: Adrian Cox <adrian@humboldt.co.uk>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ARM binutils feature churn causing kernel problems
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:15:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1097586918.23033.24.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1097057299.5332.15.camel@newt>
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 11:08, Adrian Cox wrote:
> Why does the Linux ARM ABI have to have any relation to the ARM EABI?
> The PowerPC has had two different ABIs for years, and it's not caused us
> any trouble. Can't we just leave the behaviour of binutils alone when
> configured for an arm-linux target, and put all feature churn into an
> arm-eabi target?
Sorry for the delay replying. The trouble with going on holiday is that
you then have to catch up again...
The primary reason is because we have customers who are asking for it
[linux conforming to the EABI].
On a technical front there's a number of reasons why it would be a good
idea too:
- Natural endian and alignment of all basic types ( => better
compatibility with other Linux ports. Also *very* important on XScale)
- Better compatibility with Thumb (a major customer demand).
- No more emulation of floating-point instructions that don't exist in
the hardware.
- Future proofing -- the EABI is these days considered at the
architectural level.
- and in C++, an efficient and compact unwinding model.
R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-12 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-27 20:03 Russell King
2004-09-27 20:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-09-27 20:35 ` Russell King
2004-09-27 20:37 ` Nicolas Pitre
2004-10-01 20:11 ` Russell King
2004-10-04 12:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2004-10-04 23:18 ` Rusty Russell
2004-10-05 11:10 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-10-05 11:53 ` Russell King
2004-10-05 12:57 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-10-05 13:14 ` Russell King
2004-10-05 13:40 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-10-05 13:51 ` Russell King
2004-10-06 10:08 ` Adrian Cox
2004-10-07 15:02 ` Russell King
2004-10-12 13:15 ` Richard Earnshaw [this message]
2004-10-07 14:54 ` Russell King
2004-10-05 23:00 ` Rusty Russell
2004-10-07 12:35 ` Paulo Marques
2004-10-07 15:01 ` Russell King
2004-10-07 16:39 ` Paulo Marques
2004-10-05 13:02 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-10-08 15:04 ` Russell King
2004-10-08 16:36 ` Paulo Marques
2004-10-08 18:14 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-10-08 19:43 ` Paulo Marques
2004-10-20 11:38 ` [PATCH] Fix ARM kernel build with permitted binutils versions Russell King
2004-10-26 22:37 ` Sam Ravnborg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1097586918.23033.24.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=richard.earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=adrian@humboldt.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome