This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Problem with VFP indication in ARM objects
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej at wasabisystems dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:23:08 +0000
- Subject: Re: Problem with VFP indication in ARM objects
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> I have a dilemma...
>
> NetBSD/arm ELF uses VFP-format soft-FP, and modern gas can mark objects
> as such...
>
> However, the 2.11.2 gas could not mark objects as such...
>
> "Guess which version of gas is currently used in NetBSD."
>
> I need to come up with a solution which allows me to link objects which
> are properly marked as "soft-VFP" with objects which are not (the objects
> in question unfortunately lack both flags, so appear as "hard-FPA").
>
> Anyone have suggestions of how I can lessen my pain? Am I stuck with
> a flag-day?
Yep, a major drawback of the existing method of marking these attributes
is that we can't tell the difference between 'not-marked' and 'marked with
the meaning associated with the bit set to zero'.
We really need a better way of marking things, perhaps with some special
.note section that has attribute strings in it. But it needs some thought
to get it right. Apart from anything else, the current use by GAS of the
flags field makes it impossible to mark an object as being conforming to
the EABI.
R.