Proposal: Switch arm-rtems to arm-eabi from arm-elf

Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsepius at
Fri Apr 30 13:04:04 UTC 2010

On 04/30/2010 02:49 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 04/30/2010 06:32 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 04/30/2010 01:21 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On 04/30/2010 03:20 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>> Could some ARM experts enlighten me on the impact?
>>> I am not one of these.
>>>> I think this needs to happen before 4.11 but I
>>>> am open to arguments that it needs to happen before
>>>> 4.10.
>>> IMO, such a change would be too radical at this point in time.
>>> OK with me for rtems-4.11, but not OK with me for rtems-4.11.
>> <sigh/>  ... not OK ... for rtems-4.10
> That's the way I was leaning.  Hoping that we would
> be able to branch soon. :)
Well, as you know, still to many bugs for my taste ;)

> I know you have seen the last couple of arm questions
> to gcc.  The answer has included something like "that
> works on arm-eabi but rtems is based on arm-elf".
I know, but I don't buy these answers.

> It is becoming very clear where we should be. :)
Does it? IMO, arm-elf still has its place. Admitted, 
arm-elf-binutils/GCC might not have received the amount of testing, it 
could use.

I am inclined to believe the only cause is one major contributor to 
arm-gcc having switched to using armeabi ... but may-be others will 

Which object format do other OSes use on the arm?

Which advantages/disadvantages would armeabi offer over arm-elf?


More information about the users mailing list