On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 17:40 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> I discovered that if you build a plain arm-elf toolchain, the default
> float-abis for gcc and gas don't match. I added this patch locally to
> make it "just work" but it seems to me it would be better to have the
> defaults match, although
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >> But, of course, arm-elf is really a dead ABI at this point...
> >
> > hmmm... if it's dead enough, it becomes a moot point, doesn't it?
>
> It's pretty dead. Richard Earnshaw recently suggested deprecating
> arm-elf in GCC 4.6. I think that's reas
> If it isn't, then you can either punt on arm-elf, or enable some
> EABI functionality there. If, on the other hand, you think there's
> a problem when using the EABI, then we should talk about how to
> solve it.
EABI works fine, we're just working through our array of
things-to-be-tested and a
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Yes, but presumably you could make those pseudo-ops ARM-specific,
>> rather than EABI specific?
>
> Could, but gcc doesn't always know the specific .fpu. I imagine
> version-sync nightmares too, so IMHO we should either do a
> command-line thing from gcc, or just forget it i
> Yes, but presumably you could make those pseudo-ops ARM-specific,
> rather than EABI specific?
Could, but gcc doesn't always know the specific .fpu. I imagine
version-sync nightmares too, so IMHO we should either do a
command-line thing from gcc, or just forget it if EABI works.
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I thought this stuff already existed in arm-eabi toolchains. If it
>> doesn't exist in arm-elf, then you should be able to use it there too.
>
> The EABI toolchains use eabi-specific pseudos to set the .fpu.
Yes, but presumably you could make those pseudo-ops ARM-specific,
> The compiler should generate a pseudo-op that is processed by the
> assembler. If the right pseudo-op doesn't already exist, it needs
> to be added to both the assembler and compiler.
The assembler has pseudo-s for ".fpu" which says what kind of FPU it
has, but the generic hard/soft choice is
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I am strongly of the opinion that the right way to do this is to have
>> the compiler generate appropriate directives in the assembly files it
>> generates -- and to have users do the same. Relying on the defaults is
>> just too dangerous.
>
> So... where should this go?
Th
> I am strongly of the opinion that the right way to do this is to have
> the compiler generate appropriate directives in the assembly files it
> generates -- and to have users do the same. Relying on the defaults is
> just too dangerous.
So... where should this go?
DJ Delorie wrote:
> I discovered that if you build a plain arm-elf toolchain, the default
> float-abis for gcc and gas don't match. I added this patch locally to
> make it "just work" but it seems to me it would be better to have the
> defaults match, although I'm not sure how to enforce that. C
I discovered that if you build a plain arm-elf toolchain, the default
float-abis for gcc and gas don't match. I added this patch locally to
make it "just work" but it seems to me it would be better to have the
defaults match, although I'm not sure how to enforce that. Comments?
Suggestions?
Ind
11 matches
Mail list logo
