Subject: Re: Shared library support for ARM ELF
To: None <Richard.Earnshaw@buzzard.freeserve.co.uk>
From: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/23/2001 10:51:29
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > any additional routines in libarm32? Should that be renamed libarm?
I'd be kind of reluctant to rename an existing library.
> > Do those routines do the right thing on arm26?
Probably not. They should be no-ops, but probably give a SIGSYS, or panic
> In order to make trampolines work correctly, the compiler really needs to
> make use of the cache synchronization function. Having it as a function
> in libarm is a pain, since it means that either the compiler must emit the
> SWI call directly, or libarm must be linked into every program on the
> off-chance that it might use trampolines. How about having
> __arm_sync_icach() (note preceeding underscores) in libc? It could be
> exactly the same as the libarm version.
Alternatively, ARM specify a SWI to use for this (IMB), so why not make it
work and have GCC emit it?
Ben Harris <email@example.com>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26 <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>