Re: My progress on armhf: xf86-video-msm for armhf attempt. Please test.
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 01:40:42PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> Like I said, the -mthumb-interwork option isn't meaningful in this context.
> Don't beleieve everything you misread and misunderstand. All all EABI based
> targets, and all armv5+ code have interworking enabled by default (in the
> latter case there is no code size penalty).
Well the xf86-video-msm had CFLAGS options specified. I removed them
and now it compiles on armhf using whatever the gcc defaults are.
My understanding of the gcc defaults on armhf is that thumb-interworking
is not enabled by default. Maybe it is and the gcc specs is even less
readable than I thought.
> It's a choice that *you* have made for the code that you build. Third party
> applications/libraris can and do use ARM mode.
Not me, the armhf port as far as I can tell.
> Also the compiler and linker sometimes choose to use ARM mode (e.g. for
> PLT/branch stubs). If you want pure thumb code then you must to target an
> architecture variant that does not include ARM mode instruction.
I am just going by wha I thought the wiki said and what the gcc -dumpspecs
appeared to say (not that the gcc developers did anything to even remotely
to make that readable).
> The EABI allows coprocessors supplements to define variants of the calling
> conventions. The VFP ABI used by armhf is one of these.
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: