From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4203 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: arm softfp compatibility arch/fpu in gcc-4.8.2 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:26:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20131107222634.GW24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <527C126D.5000903@barfooze.de> 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 1383863204 14349 80.91.229.3 (7 Nov 2013 22:26:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dave+gmane@wuertele.com To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4207-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Nov 07 23:26:49 2013 Return-path: 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 ) id 1VeY2K-0006yX-IP for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:26:48 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 7486 invoked by uid 550); 7 Nov 2013 22:26:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 7478 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2013 22:26:46 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <527C126D.5000903@barfooze.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4203 Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:21:33PM +0100, John Spencer wrote: > >arm-linux-musleabihf/4.8.2/../../../../arm-linux-musleabihf/bin/ld: failed to > >merge target specific data of file lib/armeabi/libXXX.a(YYY.o) > > > >What arch/fpu should I use to build a toolchain that can link against this > >library? > > if you need to link to proprietary softfloat modules, you have to > use "softfp" float mode. that one is compatible to soft, but makes > full use of the FPU. Yes, the basic issue is that these modules are compiled for the standard ARM EABI, not the VFP hard-float ABI variant. It's possible to have both installed in parallel, but if you'll be working with straight EABI library code, I would just use the "softfp" mode (which yields ld-musl-arm.so.1 rather than ld-musl-armhf.so.1) for everything for the sake of simplicity (so that you only have to have one set of libraries). I think this issue should be made more clear on the wiki: that there is a choice between two different ARM ABIs here, and that the choice of which is appropriate depends on both where you want your code to run and what existing binary code you might be linking with it. Rich