Le 19/02/2011 15:06, Alexander Holler a écrit : > Am 19.02.2011 14:51, schrieb Albert ARIBAUD: >> Le 19/02/2011 14:25, Måns Rullgård a écrit : >> >>>> So whats the reasoning to use -msoft-float as it is currently done? To >>>> confuse people? ;) >>> >>> I guess it's there to make sure no floating-point instructions make it >>> into u-boot, even though floats are not used in the code. Perhaps >>> someone was paranoid. >> >> I think also that there is no choice but to have a float option for ARM >> C, either 'soft' or 'hard' (or 'softfp', actually, which is 'hard' with >> the 'soft' calling conventions), because the C compiler does not allow >> 'no floats', and anyway the C language *requires* to have some sort of >> float support. > > As it is on every platform.
Indeed. >> Actually if you don't specify any float option, the C toolchain will >> choose one, which is just the same in the end: *some* float option is >> chosen. > > Every compiler has dozens of options which are set to a default value. Granted. But not all of them relate to hardware which may or may not be available. >> And since some option must be chosen, I prefer that U-Boot make the >> explicit decision, and choose soft float for the reasons I already >> exposed. > > I don't see any reason to explicitly set an option for something which > isn't used, but I know of many reasons to avoid such. ;) At least there is one reason for having -msoft-float even though no floating point should be used in U-Boot : it helps catching cases where some code in U-Boot tries to use hard float. :) Think of it as choosing the least dangerous of Charybdis and Scylla, while trying our best not to get near any of the two. > Regards, > > Alexander Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
