On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 15:40 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > It turns out that different functions are used :
> > - my 4.4 implementation takes its multiply code from dp-bit.c
> > - the 4.1 implementation takes it from ieee754-df.S
> >
> > I've now tweaked gcc/config/arm/t-wince-pe (to use _arm_muldi
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 15:40 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 14:51 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:06 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > > > Danny Backx wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, D
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 14:51 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:06 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > > Danny Backx wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kai Ruottu wrote :
> > > >> Compa
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:06 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > Danny Backx wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> > > Kai Ruottu wrote :
> > >> Comparing the output from some earlier working GCC with the gcc-4.4.0
> >
>>
>> Could this be related to old-vs-new EABI? Is the stack aligned to the
>> same
>> multiple on entry to main in both old and new executables? The
assembler
>> code
>> looked basically the same, except the stack frame size has changed and a
>> lot
>> of things that were aligned to an (odd
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Danny Backx wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> > Kai Ruottu wrote :
> >> Comparing the output from some earlier working GCC with the gcc-4.4.0
> >> output would reveal if something was wrong in preparing inputs f
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:17 +0300, Kai Ruottu wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
> > Danny Backx wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> >> Kai Ruottu wrote :
> >>> Comparing the output from some earlier working GCC with the gcc-4.4.0
> >>> output would reveal if something was
Dave Korn wrote:
Danny Backx wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
Kai Ruottu wrote :
Comparing the output from some earlier working GCC with the gcc-4.4.0
output would reveal if something was wrong in preparing inputs for
the soft-float routines... Or maybe something wa
Danny Backx wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Kai Ruottu wrote :
>> Comparing the output from some earlier working GCC with the gcc-4.4.0
>> output would reveal if something was wrong in preparing inputs for
>> the soft-float routines... Or maybe something was changed
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Are you using soft or hard fp?
Soft. Not all ARM processors have hardware fp.
> I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this until you start looking
> at the generated code to see precisely *what* is wrong with it. You've gone
> as
Danny Backx wrote:
Hi Danny,
> The difference between the last two printf statements points out, I
> think, that a problem exists around printf. Might be float to double
> conversion.
Could also be stdargs. Or float arg passing in general. Or arg promotion.
Are you using soft or hard fp?
[I probably tried the wrong list earlier, got no reply on gcc-help.]
I've been looking into this problem, I don't seem to be able to track it
down. With the addition of gcc-4.4.0 to the cegcc toolset, the ARM
float/double arithmetic appears to be broken.
Environment is cross-development for execu
12 matches
Mail list logo
