Re: Bug#154179: Please create binary-sh[34] and remove binary-sh
Hi,
At Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:39:25 -0700,
rmurray@debian.org wrote:
> > No, it is not same as i386 vs i686.
> > Please refer the mail written by NIIBE Yutaka <gniibe@m17n.org>
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-superh/2001/debian-superh-200109/msg00011.html
>
> This seems to say that sh3 binaries are fine for sh4, but that the entire
> binary (including all shared libraries) must be built at the same
> optimization level, or the ABI changes.
That's right.
> > The object and/or shared library are *not* compatible between SH3
> > and SH4, so we can not mix SH3 and SH4 binary on the same environmet.
> > We can run i686 optimized binaries on i386 binaries environment.
> > But we can not run SH4 optimized binaries on sh3 binary environment.
>
> This means that it won't be possible to rebuild things to be optimized
> (easily). (One could rebuild the entire path of shared libraries and
> use some of the linker tricks tried with glibc in the past). It's
> still the case where a pure sh3 environment would work perfectly fine on
> sh4. Does this ABI change also happen with static libraries?
I suppose static libraries are also incompatible, that is, you cannot
link sh4 objects with sh3 static libraries. The ABI differs in how it
assigns registers for function arguments.
On the other hand, the sh4 binaries linked statically on the sh4
environment might work on the sh3 environment too. But static binaries
wouldn't be welcomed on resource-restricted embedded platforms.
Regards,
--
YAEGASHI Takeshi <t@keshi.org> <takeshi@yaegashi.jp> <yaegashi@dodes.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-superh-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: