On Tuesday 10 March 2009 21:44:23 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > perhaps we need to extend the libgcc.map function to allow people to > > insert $(FPBIT_FUNCS) and such into the map so libgcc_s.so exports these > > suckers ? > > Exporting functions that are internal to fp-bit rather than part of the > documented libgcc interface has the disadvantage that you then need to > keep them around when targets change to other software floating-point > implementations (such as soft-fp, which is significantly faster than > fp-bit, or assembly implementations for particular targets). > > Perhaps you might like to convert your target to soft-fp to avoid the > problem. fp-bit has slightly smaller code size and supports 16-bit > targets which soft-fp may not, but for any 32-bit or 64-bit target a few > kB more in libgcc shouldn't be significant and the speed improvements are > substantial. (If you want exception and rounding mode support for > software floating-point, soft-fp can do that as well, but you can also > configure it with that support disabled.)
you're saying the ABI of soft-fp is stable and is part of the export libgcc_s.so interface ? -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
