Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:00:06 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> Cc: Andrew Turner <andrew@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r246706 - head/lib/libc/arm/aeabi Message-ID: <20130213140006.GP2522@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20130213222546.315be533@bender> References: <201302120604.r1C64pEW008741@svn.freebsd.org> <511A5277.8060507@freebsd.org> <20130213222546.315be533@bender>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--CYsUdKbv42Pa+O69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:25:46PM +1300, Andrew Turner wrote: > On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:32:23 -0600 > Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > > 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=3Darmv6. >=20 > In summary my plan is: > < 9: No change > >=3D 10: Switch to EABI and remove or depricate OABI Does the ABI change happen for the interfaces exported both by usermode components and kernel, or only usermode components ? Or, does the kernel exported ABI supports both OABI and EABI ? --CYsUdKbv42Pa+O69 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRG5xlAAoJEJDCuSvBvK1BhysQAIAGjYFSu8d0tiy10NYobjmk zL1HgohTLtMjEdsjf32g5DLbRzdwNHM6TT9BIg83RH4nkP5lvrOKK1SHXJ1+n4pA Vuwnnnnb56z7aXIGowgI7znIlpYqvOgDRZqnoXEoELtzbx71gK53l7ZkrU/93NxD F2tQlQCI/8Z/93DNm0mXIj3s54TRvuEfVM8zyP1v+8eQIsyGm7YgWh2IDLIKwqXl 9FJ5a6OnsfjzYvgC1RUaBhPKWVm9RnA7F67LJCNarXWErzsoIKMzcbNCem2Jo6iS QYj7I50hRzo6Hd+wRNbfMg4NiQ5JcdIOzlc1V2nEU2DhiJ/6ndqpE/b8MwUPPM/M r2t5T9emI4OeEvlBFWwweCzV04qe+LKWm0lSfXKDPyyx8VE6G4FNRUoZdO3xcXrr VQoahAcoV5YSqW6HaW9IXV0bBMfIvbHT2gwAh16TrLs/3rMRt2/HA5/8N2mTpqyo r4Aik9/jBBRVZL2sPgVIPmHSLlubncmIrCT5IN5dykN69aziE6tPYZtdGrEbJqrS blAPp6ZxZmUmiH0Ti6jUT5Ae/uRj3h6zCLuf+MjwctyuxioAQ/SZJO4QDuLhn5Aq M8pRTr2JRRHP+CR8OlsMaQ7CNV8UEeARlZsLwN5YUc4nRpRnInEkNot8rawiHUfA zLZGJRKeTVU29aX7yPL9 =IpEu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CYsUdKbv42Pa+O69--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130213140006.GP2522>