Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 01:37:57 -0500 From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Thinking about release On 07/10/2013 02:42:34 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > 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. One of my larger pending todo items for aboriginal is fishing the last gplv2 release out of gcc git the same way I did for binutils. (In theory, this should give me armv7l support. In practice, the mpfr and gmp split complicates matters...) If somebody wanted to come up with an armv4-eabi patch, I'd happily include it. Or just give me rather a lot of hints on what would be involved, since I'm not much of an arm assembly programmer... Rob
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.