Thumb patches

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Brook [mailto:paul at codesourcery.com] 
> Sent: 16 November 2006 01:39
> To: Joakim Tjernlund
> Cc: uclibc at uclibc.org; kraj at mvista.com
> Subject: Re: Thumb patches
> 
> On Thursday 16 November 2006 00:32, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Brook [mailto:paul at codesourcery.com]
> > > Sent: den 16 november 2006 01:20
> > > To: uclibc at uclibc.org
> > > Cc: Joakim Tjernlund; kraj at mvista.com
> > > Subject: Re: Thumb patches
> > >
> > > > 3) The other arm #ifdef code is to support very old
> > >
> > > binutils/gcc, right?
> > >
> > > >    That doesn't belong in a new uClibc code.
> > >
> > > The STT_ARM_TFUNC bit are to support non-eabi targets.
> > > Old-abi targets (or which there are still many) identify
> > > thumb functions by
> > > giving them STT_ARM_TFUNC. On EABI all function ssymbols have
> > > tye STT_FUNC
> > > and the low bit of the value is set of Thumb functions.
> > >
> > > The comment saying this is for "old" binutils is wrong.
> >
> > Thanks for explaining. Then I wonder if TFUNC stuff should be under
> > a SUPPORT_OLD_ARM_ABI(better name needed) config flag?
> 
> Yes, probably.

hmm, does it make sense to use the old ABI in a new uClibc env.?
Since uClibc isn't binary compatible yet one must recompile everything 
and then you could just as well switch to the new EABI?

> 
> On a related note, either r16526 or r16527 broke arm-linux-gnueabi. 
> Dynamically linked ARM binaries segfault somewhere in the 
> dynamic loader.

My guess would be r16527.

 Jocke