From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 13 09:25:59 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98735C9; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:25:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew@fubar.geek.nz) Received: from smtp3.clear.net.nz (smtp3.clear.net.nz [203.97.33.64]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82D5698; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:25:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mxin3-orange.clear.net.nz (lb2-srcnat.clear.net.nz [203.97.32.237]) by smtp3.clear.net.nz (CLEAR Net Mail) with ESMTP id <0MI500DHKJIZRF50@smtp3.clear.net.nz>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:25:50 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from 202-0-48-19.paradise.net.nz (HELO bender) ([202.0.48.19]) by smtpin32.paradise.net.nz with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:25:49 +1300 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:25:46 +1300 From: Andrew Turner Subject: Re: svn commit: r246706 - head/lib/libc/arm/aeabi In-reply-to: <511A5277.8060507@freebsd.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn Message-id: <20130213222546.315be533@bender> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <201302120604.r1C64pEW008741@svn.freebsd.org> <511A5277.8060507@freebsd.org> Cc: Andrew Turner , svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:25:59 -0000 On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:32:23 -0600 Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > A related question to these commits: are EABI binaries incompatible > with systems built for OABI? And vice versa? If so, should we mint a > new MACHINE_ARCH for ARM EABI (or OABI, I guess)? The usual > implication of sharing a uname -p string is that systems can run each > other's binaries -- that being broken is a strong argument for a new > value. -Nathan Yes OABI and EABI are binary incompatible. The plan is to kill off OABI at some stage in the future when EABI is ready. At some time in the future I plan on flipping the switch to make EABI the default but keep OABI around to allow people a chance to update. I am relying on ARM being a Tier 2 platform to change the ABI such that we break backward compatibility without changing uname -p. I have the start of a compat layer in the EABI project branch however never finished it. If people are interested in updating this compatibility layer I can point them at the code. The other point is backwards compatibility should only be an issue for ARMv4 and ARMv5 as these are the only cores we have support for on the any of the current release branches. ARMv6 and ARMv7 is added to 10 and there has not been an MFC to any of the stable branches. Because of this I have even less hesitation to stitch the ABI for TARGET_ARCH=armv6. In summary my plan is: < 9: No change >= 10: Switch to EABI and remove or depricate OABI Andrew