[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:26:34 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: dave+gmane@...rtele.com
Subject: Re: arm softfp compatibility arch/fpu in gcc-4.8.2
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:21:33PM +0100, John Spencer wrote:
> >arm-linux-musleabihf/4.8.2/../../../../arm-linux-musleabihf/bin/ld: failed to
> >merge target specific data of file lib/armeabi/libXXX.a(YYY.o)
> >
> >What arch/fpu should I use to build a toolchain that can link against this
> >library?
>
> if you need to link to proprietary softfloat modules, you have to
> use "softfp" float mode. that one is compatible to soft, but makes
> full use of the FPU.
Yes, the basic issue is that these modules are compiled for the
standard ARM EABI, not the VFP hard-float ABI variant. It's possible
to have both installed in parallel, but if you'll be working with
straight EABI library code, I would just use the "softfp" mode (which
yields ld-musl-arm.so.1 rather than ld-musl-armhf.so.1) for everything
for the sake of simplicity (so that you only have to have one set of
libraries).
I think this issue should be made more clear on the wiki: that there
is a choice between two different ARM ABIs here, and that the choice
of which is appropriate depends on both where you want your code to
run and what existing binary code you might be linking with it.
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.
