paul at codesourcery.com
Thu Nov 16 00:38:59 UTC 2006
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?
On a related note, either r16526 or r16527 broke arm-linux-gnueabi.
Dynamically linked ARM binaries segfault somewhere in the dynamic loader.
More information about the uClibc