Hi Richard,
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 11:58 , Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>
>> Regarding removal of old ABI support, which release were you
>> targeting ?
>>
>> On the VxWorks front, where we adapt to what the system toolchains
>> do, it will mean dropping support for VxWorks versions prior
On 25/07/17 11:31, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> (back from a few days away)
>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:01 , Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>
>>> That's good news. Does that mean we'll be able to drop the old stuff
>>> though? I'd really like to make progress towards removing the old ABI
>>
Hi Richard,
(back from a few days away)
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:01 , Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
>> That's good news. Does that mean we'll be able to drop the old stuff
>> though? I'd really like to make progress towards removing the old ABI
>> support from GCC.
>
> Yes, I'd think so, but Olivie
> What I said. looking at the contents of vxworks.h I see:
>
> #define CC1_SPEC\
> "%{tstrongarm:-mlittle-endian -mcpu=strongarm ; \
>t4:-mlittle-endian -march=armv4 ;\
>t4b
On 16/07/17 10:21, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The port is also *very* out-of-date. Not only does it not use the EABI,
>> but it hasn't had support for any core added since ARMv5 (and ARMv6 was
>> announced in 2002)!
>
> What do you mean exactly? The port works fine on ARMv7.
What I said. looking
> The port is also *very* out-of-date. Not only does it not use the EABI,
> but it hasn't had support for any core added since ARMv5 (and ARMv6 was
> announced in 2002)!
What do you mean exactly? The port works fine on ARMv7.
> I therefore propose that we consider this port for deprecation.
We
My patch last week to address selection of be8 linking mode broke the
build for vxworks. It turns out that this port is one of the few
remaining that is still not based on the EABI/AAPCS.
This patch fixes the build, but I've not really tested it beyond
building the core compiler binaries. Buildi
