> The relevant options are -mcpu=476 (no FP unit) and -mcpu=476fp> (with FP > unit). Basically, -mcpu=476 is equivalent to> -mcpu=476fp -msoft-float. Yes what you have mentioned is right.
I had a problem configuring the GCC for 476 in little endian mode, therefore I am using 440 compiler. As this compiler doesn't accept -mcpu=476 i am using -mcpu=440. So is this PTE fault related to the compiler options? Thanks, Santosh Kumar .A On 1 November 2011 19:14, Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 08:32 +0530, Santosh Kumar wrote: >> I am using the same compiler as 476 & 440 instruction is almost the same. > > Well the 476 implements ISA 2.05, which I think has added a fair amount > over the 440. Not to mention the 476 core that has been released has > a FP unit. I'll note that GCC has support for a 476 with and without > a FP unit, even though AFAIK, we only ship one with a FP unit. > The relevant options are -mcpu=476 (no FP unit) and -mcpu=476fp > (with FP unit). Basically, -mcpu=476 is equivalent to > -mcpu=476fp -msoft-float. > > > >> @@ -53,7 +58,12 @@ >> mullw r10,r0,r4 # and get the remainder >> add r8,r8,r0 >> subf r6,r10,r6 >> +#ifdef CONFIG_INVADER >> 4: stw r7,0(r3) # return the quotient in *r3 >> stw r8,4(r3) >> +#else >> +4: stw r7,0(r3) # return the quotient in *r3 >> + stw r8,4(r3) >> +#endif >> mr r3,r6 # return the remainder in r3 >> blr > > This looks like a typo, since you didn't actually swap the offsets > on the stw's like you did in all of the other patch hunks. > > > Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
