On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 01:40:42PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > Like I said, the -mthumb-interwork option isn't meaningful in this context. > Don't beleieve everything you misread and misunderstand. All all EABI based > targets, and all armv5+ code have interworking enabled by default (in the > latter case there is no code size penalty).
Well the xf86-video-msm had CFLAGS options specified. I removed them and now it compiles on armhf using whatever the gcc defaults are. My understanding of the gcc defaults on armhf is that thumb-interworking is not enabled by default. Maybe it is and the gcc specs is even less readable than I thought. > It's a choice that *you* have made for the code that you build. Third party > applications/libraris can and do use ARM mode. Not me, the armhf port as far as I can tell. > Also the compiler and linker sometimes choose to use ARM mode (e.g. for > PLT/branch stubs). If you want pure thumb code then you must to target an > architecture variant that does not include ARM mode instruction. I am just going by wha I thought the wiki said and what the gcc -dumpspecs appeared to say (not that the gcc developers did anything to even remotely to make that readable). > The EABI allows coprocessors supplements to define variants of the calling > conventions. The VFP ABI used by armhf is one of these. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110901134854.gu15...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
