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 The port is also *very* out-of-date.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 The port is also *very* out-of-date.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
