[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:42:34 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Thinking about release
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:28:21AM +1200, Andre Renaud wrote:
> >> Does anyone have any comments on the suitability of this code, or what
> >
> > If nothing else, it fails to be armv4 compatible. Fixing that should
> > not be hard, but it would require a bit of an audit. The return
> > sequences are the obvious issue, but there may be other instructions
> > in use that are not available on armv4 or maybe not even on armv5...?
>
> Rob Landley mentioned a while ago that armv4 has issues with the EABI
> stuff. Is armv4 a definite lower bound for musl support, as opposed to
> armv4t or armv5?
EABI specifies thumb; however, it's possible to have code which
conforms fully to EABI but does not rely on the presence of thumb. GCC
is incapable of generating such code, but it could be enhanced to do
so, and all of the existing assembly in musl is plain-v4-compatible,
so I would prefer not to shut out the possibility of supporting older
ARM.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
