On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:14:57AM -0500, Adam Ford wrote: > > > The readme file for OMAP indicates that we compile using armv5 to "to > > allow more compilers to work" > > > > We have our arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap3/lowlevel_init.S file also noting > > some special assembly insturctions becuse we use armv5. The barriers > > defined also indicate we're using CP15 instead of the separate barrier > > instructions for armv7 because we're using armv5 instead. > > > > I just wonder in this day and age when we're noting a GCC version and > > generating warnings based on the GCC warning, do we still need to > > compile as armv5 any more? It seems like "to allow more compilers to > > work" would not really apply any more we're trying to push newer > > versions of GCC. > > So, these are historical notes that really should be corrected. > Initially, when ARMv7 support was added, most people did not have > compilers new enough to recognize -march=armv7-a. We still even support > them, see the logic in arch/arm/Makefile around CONFIG_CPU_V7 (the > options are any sort of modern gcc, llvm, ancient gcc). When we move to > gcc-6 being the oldest gcc supported for ARM we can fixup those comments > and logic as well.
My understanding is that we've made the requirement for GCC 6 now. I just pushed a patch which enabled mtune=armv7-a-generic when CONFIG_CPU_V7A is enabled and that seems to shrink the code a bit on omap3_logic. Does it make sense to remove the , -march=armv5 from arch/arm/Makefile and or the plain -march=armv7 since CONFIG_CPU_V7A implies armv-a? adam > > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
