From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3615
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: Thinking about release
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:42:34 -0400
Message-ID: <20130710194233.GD29800@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <20130613012517.GA5859@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAPfzE3a0h=2NFqgnBqXj3J2q7VgYjqZ19Ab=0LAe5u5SvWXHaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130613014314.GC29800@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAPfzE3aerGrdmTkj15o0CTVtt8TZpTyAnSAj1Joau+Jb_cNGUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130709053711.GO29800@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAPfzE3ZTxynUeJjq7KWijZGhsV==NymW4vqLhnQbEYCXRxVf-g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1373485365 14181 80.91.229.3 (10 Jul 2013 19:42:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:42:45 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-3619-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Jul 10 21:42:47 2013
Return-path: <musl-return-3619-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-3619-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1Ux0Hn-00021S-9K
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:42:47 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 25705 invoked by uid 550); 10 Jul 2013 19:42:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 25697 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2013 19:42:46 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPfzE3ZTxynUeJjq7KWijZGhsV==NymW4vqLhnQbEYCXRxVf-g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3615
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3615>

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:28:21AM +1200, Andre Renaud wrote:
> >> Does anyone have any comments on the suitability of this code, or what
> >
> > If nothing else, it fails to be armv4 compatible. Fixing that should
> > not be hard, but it would require a bit of an audit. The return
> > sequences are the obvious issue, but there may be other instructions
> > in use that are not available on armv4 or maybe not even on armv5...?
> 
> Rob Landley mentioned a while ago that armv4 has issues with the EABI
> stuff. Is armv4 a definite lower bound for musl support, as opposed to
> armv4t or armv5?

EABI specifies thumb; however, it's possible to have code which
conforms fully to EABI but does not rely on the presence of thumb. GCC
is incapable of generating such code, but it could be enhanced to do
so, and all of the existing assembly in musl is plain-v4-compatible,
so I would prefer not to shut out the possibility of supporting older
ARM.

Rich