Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CMakeLists.txt: Remove -mthumb-interwork #143

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 27, 2018
Merged

CMakeLists.txt: Remove -mthumb-interwork #143

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 27, 2018

Conversation

kraj
Copy link
Contributor

@kraj kraj commented Nov 12, 2016

This option is meaningless with aapcs ABI
which is the default for Linux and android
for armv7+ architectures

As an aside it helps in compiling with clang
where this option is absent

Signed-off-by: Khem Raj raj.khem@gmail.com

This option is meaningless with aapcs ABI
which is the default for Linux and android
for armv7+ architectures

As an aside it helps in compiling with clang
where this option is absent

Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
@joesavage
Copy link
Member

joesavage commented Dec 9, 2016

Looks good to me. The baseline architectural target for Ne10 is ARMv7, and devices supporting this shouldn't really be using obsolete calling conventions intended for the older, ARMv4-era architectures that this flag seems to be catered for (in recent versions of GCC, at least). Certainly, the default ABI used for ARMv7+ compilation is AAPCS, as you outlined.

The situation for older versions of GCC may be a different story, as this flag may have played a different role, but this shouldn't be an issue for us when targeting ARMv7 and above (as there are no special interworking exceptions to the EABI in this case, as indicated in section 5.6 of ARM IHI 0042F). As such, I'm in agreement that this flag is totally useless — on ARMv7+, -mthumb-interwork appears to be purely for non-AAPCS ABIs as the AAPCS EABI handles Thumb interworking just fine on its own.

Have you filled out a CLA to allow me to merge this contribution? (see contributing.md)

@kraj
Copy link
Contributor Author

kraj commented Dec 9, 2016

@joesavage CLA ? no, and its too much work for such a small patch

@joesavage
Copy link
Member

FWIW, I agree. For now, though, this project is still in the process of removing the CLA, so I don't believe I'm allowed to merge this yet. Maybe an exception can be made for such a tiny change, I'm not sure, but we can always wait until the CLA has been removed (which will hopefully be soon) — it's not like this change is especially urgent.

@kraj
Copy link
Contributor Author

kraj commented Dec 9, 2016

I am fine either way.

@miniupnp
Copy link

@joesavage CLA has been dropped, right ?

@Phillip-Wang Phillip-Wang merged commit a4955ee into projectNe10:master Mar 27, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants