This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Thumb, new EABI and STT_ARM_TFUNC
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 12:15:26 -0400
- Subject: Re: Thumb, new EABI and STT_ARM_TFUNC
- References: <42C92F14.80805@eCosCentric.com>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 01:44:04PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Personally, I'm going to kludge GDB to notice the low bit being set in the
> symbol address, so I'm okay. But I thought in general that old ABI
> behaviours are normally preserved with a flag (or at worst a CPP macro)
> for a while. Is this the only ABI incompatibility introduced? I'm prepared
> to put in a little time to add such a flag if people think it should
> really be there, but I'd need to know more about the ABI differences and
> incompatibilities.
See the list archives for this change:
On Thursday 18 November 2004 20:03, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> As to the issue of backward compatibility, there shouldn't be a problem
> in binutils, they will just do the appropriate transformation when
> reading in object files. As for other tools, then I think they are just
> going to have to get used to the new form. It is better that functions
> really are tagged with STT_FUNC rather than a machine-dependent value,
> and Thumb-ness really isn't that special.
There were still plenty of tools around that didn't like STT_ARM_TFUNC.
Either way someone loses; I recommend just fixing your GDB and going on
with your day.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC