From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11457 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2012 00:34:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 11395 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2012 00:34:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cheddar.halon.org.uk (HELO cheddar.halon.org.uk) (217.10.144.130) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:33:45 +0000 Received: from bsmtp by cheddar.halon.org.uk with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SzGfX-0008Qi-4l; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 01:32:25 +0100 Received: from steve by tack.local with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1SzGcj-0005Wp-4k; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 01:29:13 +0100 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:34:00 -0000 From: Steve McIntyre To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Roland McGrath , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: ARM hard-float ABI: add ldconfig flag value Message-ID: <20120809002913.GA2131@einval.com> References: <20120727160941.GA13597@linaro.org> <20120802165658.GG24537@linaro.org> <20120802172843.AC5092C0DF@topped-with-meat.com> <20120802174900.GH24537@linaro.org> <20120802175430.CF1652C0DF@topped-with-meat.com> <20120802181352.GJ24537@linaro.org> <20120802182602.77E082C0A8@topped-with-meat.com> <20120803164526.GO24537@linaro.org> <20120808134012.GA25789@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-attached: unknown User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 Hi Joseph, On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 08:01:57PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> How about the following patch? I've discussed this approach with the >> ARM ABI folks and they're happy to go with it, I hope you are >> too. Rather than use up any more of the e_flags flag space, I'm >> proposing to re-use some of the older flags as Roland suggested. The >> old flags >> >> #define EF_ARM_SOFT_FLOAT 0x200 >> #define EF_ARM_VFP_FLOAT 0x400 >> >> are only valid for really old versions of the ARM ABI, so for EABI v5 >> (the current ABI) I'm proposing to add new names for the same values: >> >> #define EF_ARM_EABI_FLOAT_SOFT 0x200 >> #define EF_ARM_EABI_FLOAT_HARD 0x400 >> >> which will specifically only be used with that ABI version. > >Could you please point to a public statement from the ARM ABI maintainers >about the reservation of these values for the next ABI revision, and the >semantics being assigned to them? There isn't one *yet*, we're waiting on your review before going ahead. If you're happy with the approach here then we'll make that happen ASAP. Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs