------- Additional Comments From corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12 15:02 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > If you are tuly using soft-float, then the results can't be returned in > > > the > > > non-existent FPU registers so I have never understood from a practical > > > matter > > > why it didn't already imply avoiding returning values in FPU registers. > > This is not how i386-gcc-rtems is set up until now. > > Right but there is nothing preventing it from changing and all BSPs with > recent test reports specify -mno-fp-ret-in-387 flag anyway. > Unfortunately, I think soft-float doesn't completely eliminate all uses of > the FPU so you have to add the no-fp-ret-in-387 argument. True, but ... -msoft-float == -mno-80387 The RTEMS user using the i386dx had proven this not to work on original i386dx w/o i387. However, he has proven -msoft-float -mno-fp-ret-in-387 to work for him. => IMO, the actual fix would be to merge MASK_FLOAT_RETURNS into MASK_80387 and to abandon MASK_FLOAT_RETURNS. > Richard has said RTEMS is > the only target who cares about soft-float. I don't agree to his statement. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19379
