Dear Remy, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > >> What I now believe that should be done is to investigate (compile > >> time) what type of ABI is supported by the libgcc provided by the > >> compiler, and adjust the compile settings to that ABI. > > > > If such a thing needs to be done, it is a compiler-issue, and we do > > not have to know or care about that. > > Okay, now I really lost you, first you have a very strong opinion that > libgcc _must_ be used. I follow you (I admit I was wrong in the > beginning), so I start investigating for a solution to actually start > using libgcc on ARM, and now you tell me you do not want that libgcc > is actually being used on ARM... (Besides, if you are consequent about > the 'not caring' part, you should also not approve the do_div()
I did not say that. I said if any compiler options must be adapted to match the ABI implemented by the tool chain, then this is an issue that is internal to this tool chain, and nothing we should bother about. If the tool chain wants to produce FOO-comptible code it must make sure (internally) to set all required options and provide all required library routines for the FOO ABI - whatever that might be. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. - R. A. Heinlein _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
