[RFA/4.7/ARM] Backport arm-*-linux-gnueabihf triplet support to 4.7

Am 20.11.2012 21:34, schrieb Matthew Gretton-Dann:
> All,
> 
> This patch backports Matthais Klose's arm*-*-linux-gnueabihf triplet
> support patch of 2012-10-15 to 4.7.
> 
> The backport was not clean as 4.8 has obsoleted various arm*-*-*
> triplets which are valid in 4.7.
> 
> I have tested this cross with arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and
> arm-none-linux-gnueabi.
> 
> One question I do have having done this work - is there a canonical way to 
> test for the arm*-*-linux-gnueabi triplet (or variants)?  Various configure 
> and testsuite files test for this, but there doesn't seem to be a consistent 
> method.
> 
> OK for 4.7?

looks fine, except one missing chunk from my original patch. maybe left out
intentionally.

  Matthias

            # The BPABI long long divmod functions return a 128-bit value in

On 21 November 2012 00:05, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Am 20.11.2012 21:34, schrieb Matthew Gretton-Dann:
>> All,
>>
>> This patch backports Matthais Klose's arm*-*-linux-gnueabihf triplet
>> support patch of 2012-10-15 to 4.7.
>>
>> The backport was not clean as 4.8 has obsoleted various arm*-*-*
>> triplets which are valid in 4.7.
>>
>> I have tested this cross with arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and
>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi.
>>
>> One question I do have having done this work - is there a canonical way to
>> test for the arm*-*-linux-gnueabi triplet (or variants)?  Various configure
>> and testsuite files test for this, but there doesn't seem to be a consistent
>> method.
>>
>> OK for 4.7?
>
> looks fine, except one missing chunk from my original patch. maybe left out
> intentionally.
>
>   Matthias
>
> Index: b/src/gcc/config.gcc
> ===================================================================
> --- a/src/gcc/config.gcc
> +++ b/src/gcc/config.gcc
> @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@
>         tm_file="dbxelf.h elfos.h arm/unknown-elf.h arm/elf.h arm/linux-gas.h
> arm/uclinux-elf.h glibc-stdint.h"
>         tmake_file="arm/t-arm arm/t-arm-elf"
>         case ${target} in
> -       arm*-*-uclinux*eabi)
> +       arm*-*-uclinux*eabi*)
>             tm_file="$tm_file arm/bpabi.h arm/uclinux-eabi.h"
>             tmake_file="$tmake_file arm/t-bpabi"
>             # The BPABI long long divmod functions return a 128-bit value in

This change isn't in your commit to trunk of 2012-10-15 which is what
I backported.  This is because Richard Earnshaw effectively made this
change when he removed FPA support (SVN rev 188510).

I'm happy to do a patch that makes this change - but I think it should
be a separate patch to this backport one.

Thanks,

Matt

--
Matthew Gretton-Dann
Linaro Toolchain Working Group
matthew.gretton-dann@linaro.org

On 21/11/12 11:48, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
> On 21 November 2012 00:05, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>
>> looks fine, except one missing chunk from my original patch. maybe left out
>> intentionally.
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>> Index: b/src/gcc/config.gcc
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/src/gcc/config.gcc
>> +++ b/src/gcc/config.gcc
>> @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@
>>          tm_file="dbxelf.h elfos.h arm/unknown-elf.h arm/elf.h arm/linux-gas.h
>> arm/uclinux-elf.h glibc-stdint.h"
>>          tmake_file="arm/t-arm arm/t-arm-elf"
>>          case ${target} in
>> -       arm*-*-uclinux*eabi)
>> +       arm*-*-uclinux*eabi*)
>>              tm_file="$tm_file arm/bpabi.h arm/uclinux-eabi.h"
>>              tmake_file="$tmake_file arm/t-bpabi"
>>              # The BPABI long long divmod functions return a 128-bit value in
>
> This change isn't in your commit to trunk of 2012-10-15 which is what
> I backported.  This is because Richard Earnshaw effectively made this
> change when he removed FPA support (SVN rev 188510).
>
> I'm happy to do a patch that makes this change - but I think it should
> be a separate patch to this backport one.
>

I would have thought this ought to be done for consistency.

R.