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
or something.

> 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                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>