RFC: ARM GCC changes

[Gedare Bloom]

Can we get this fixed? I needed to test something on ARM today, and It
took me awhile to figure out where/how to get ARM tools, and I even
knew about this eabi issue. This is annoying, and the longer it drags
out the worse it is likely to be to fix.

Please get rid of this arm-rtemseabi naming scheme.

-Gedare

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 09/25/2012 01:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>> On 09/25/2012 12:36 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>
>>> Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/25/2012 12:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/25/2012 10:54 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is an updated patch for the GCC 4.8. It renames the target
>>>>>> "arm-rtemseabi" to "arm-rtems" to bring the ARM tool chain back to the
>>>>>> standard RTEMS target pattern "$ARCH-rtems".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I tried to tell you several times before, I consider this step
>>>>>
>>>>> a) to be silly, because it raises abiguities to the "arm-rtems*"
>>>>> target tuple
>>>>> and breaks the clear distingtion between "arm-rtems" and
>>>>> "arm-rtemseabi*" we
>>>>> currently have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have only one ARM tool chain configuration in the current RTEMS
>>>> development version and this is arm-rtemseabi. The ARM tool chain is the
>>>> only exception to the $ARCH-rtems pattern. This is confusing and leads
>>>> to special cases in general support scripts.
>>
>>
>> This doesn't mean much more but your scripts to be lacking generality.
>
>
> We should keep things simple and don't introduce artificial burdens.
>
>
>>
>>>> There is absolutely no
>>>> reason to have two ARM tool chain configuration for new versions of
>>>> RTEMS.
>>
>>
>> I vehemently disagree:
>>
>> * arm-rtems4.11/gcc-4.8 would be eabi.
>
>
> Yes, this is the purpose of the patch.
>
>
>> * arm-rtems/gcc-4.7 would fail to build
>> * arm-rtems4.11/gcc-4.7 would expect *-eabi
>> * arm-rtems4.11/gcc-4.6 would be abi.
>
>
> This patch targets GCC 4.8.  The patches for GCC 4.6 and 4.7 are part of a
> previous email.
>
>
>>
>> * arm-rtems* would apply conventions arm*eabi users do not expect.
>
>
> RTEMS ARM users expect a functional tool chain with a standard name.  If a
> RTEMS ARM user has a problem with this change, he can express his concerns
> here.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Please make the change and remove the ARM ABI mess we have. Sebastian,
>>> thanks for the patch.
>>
>> There is no mess, IMO, this all is bikesheding for no technical reasons
>> but for
>> personal reasons.
>>
>> All this patch would do is to replace a clear separation with a mess and
>> cause
>> further mess. Of course you (Chris) will not experience much of the mess
>> Sebastian is causing, because you are not packing the toolchains.
>
>
> Yes, there is a mess, but only because you ignore the advice from the GCC
> ARM maintainer and me.
>
> There is no need for a separation, because only the EABI variant is useful
> for future RTEMS versions.  Why is this so difficult for you to accept?  The
> transition to the EABI variant was a process of several years and RTEMS was
> one of the last users that stuck with the totally obsolete and unmaintained
> variant.
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
>
> Address : Obere Lagerstr. 30, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> Phone   : +49 89 18 90 80 79-6
> Fax     : +49 89 18 90 80 79-9
> E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> PGP     : Public key available on request.
>
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel