> > I'm currently using the same structure-alignment rules as
> > NetBSD/arm32.  If anyone thinks I shouldn't, now would be a good time to
> > tell me so.
> 
> It isn't clear that *we* should be using an ABI different from everone
> else's on ARM, but that's a broader issue. :)
> 

I'd like to see it fixed too -- in general we get better code on the ARM 
with stricter alignment.  But the only chances I see of doing it are

1) If we ever need to bump libc's major version (which would need 
everything recompiling).  We could then try and sync it to that bump.

2) If we move arm32 to ELF (which would also need a complete recompile 
(I'm assuming that an elf executable can't use an a.out shared library.

I'd like to see the arm32 platform moving to elf; shared library support 
is much better in that object format and it also allows us to consider 
supporting other ARM cores such as ARM9 and ARM10 which have thumb modes 
(there aren't enough spare bits in the a.out reloc format to support 
thumb).  Further, we could then draw on some of the ARM/linux packages by 
adding the appropriate support code (from looking at the source I got the 
impression that doing this before we had native ELF support would be 
tricky).

R.