Re: Deciding new arm EABI port name
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:25:17 +0200, peter.kourzanov wrote:
>> This may very well be a nauseatingly unworkable suggestion, but for the
>> old ABI, it seems to me the most optimal compromise can be achieved if
>> everything used a shared-object soft-float library that could be swapped
>> out and replaced with whatever work-alike would be most speed-efficient on
>
> As was explained consistently with my experience, you can not mix
> binaries compiled with -mhard-float and with -msoft-float, as well as
> ones compiled with -msoft-float -mfpu=vfp with -msoft-float. There is
> a flag in the object (look for private flags in objdump -x) that
> prevents linking objects with incompatible ABIs.
That is precisely why I am suggesting here that -mhard-float be dumped
altogether in favor of -msoft-float, but have the soft-float
implementation code be a shared object that can be replaced as needed.
>> the individual machine. The standard library would use basic ARM
>> instructions to implement the soft-float API and data types, while one
>> drop-in replacement could use FPA instructions to emulate the same thing
>> and convert data types on the fly, another could use VFP instructions with
>> no conversion, etc. Other ABI inadequacies notwithstanding, is this really
>> less trivial to do than replacing the ABI wholesale with something less
>> backward-compatible?
>
> EABI is probably the answer to all those issues...
...except backward compatibility, right?
Reply to: