Hi Daniel, Le 05/11/2011 14:43, Daniel Schwierzeck a écrit : > Hi Albert, > > On 05.11.2011 10:16, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Le 04/11/2011 18:56, Wolfgang Denk a écrit : >>> Dear Daniel Schwierzeck, >>> >>> In >>> message<CACUy__XY1873+dT-s=-gypebq5hnysmywwt-gxexiwy97ec...@mail.gmail.com> >>> >>> you wrote: >>>> >>>> Should we change it? is the semantic still the same? >>> >>> I'm not sure. At first reading it doesn't look really the same to me. >> >> They are not, at least for ELDK4.2. >> >> The only difference is in -mabi options, where the change would reduce >> "-mabi=apcs-gnu -mabi=aapcs-linux" to "-mabi=aapcs-linux". >> >> apcs-gnu, IIUC, is 'old ABI', while 'aapcs-linux' is 'new ABI', aka >> eabi. Most of the toolchains I see are eabi (ELDK and CS notably). There >> may be 'old ABI' toolchains out there, but I don't think they are old >> ABI either. >> >> Anyway, I've just tried ./MAKEALL edminiv2 with ELD42 and a couple of CS >> toolchains, and nowhere in the log does -mabi=apcs-gnu show up -- the >> gcc invocations only have -mabi=aapcs-linux. > > Looks like I read it wrong. So you always want "-mabi=apcs-gnu > -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-thumb-interwork" in $(PF_CPPFLAGS_ABI) with EABI? > Sorry but I am not an ARM expert ;)
No, I don't want that. :) The problem I see is having two conflicting -mabi options, -mabi=apcs-gnu and -mabi=aapcs-linux, in the same command line. There should be only one -- and it should be the same across the whole U-Boot building process. The duplicate -mno-thumb-interwork does not worry me fronm a functional standpoint; it's just a waste of space, that's all. >> I've also tested making ED Mini V2 with and without the patch but >> without Daniel's proposed change to arch/arm/config.mk, and there is no >> difference in build commands (except that for some reason the patch >> inserts multiple spaces between some gcc invocation options. > > I guess this comes from making the macros more readable. Maybe I can > optimize this. > >> >> Daniel, what do you mean with "does not work correctly"? > > that the generated cache file looks not right > > CC_OPTIONS += -mabi=apcs-gnu > CC_OPTIONS_NOP += -mabi=apcs-gnu > CC_OPTIONS += -mno-thumb-interwork > CC_OPTIONS += -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-thumb-interwork I'm not a makefile expert, so "looks not right" is a bit meaningless to me. If "not right" means "there are several conflicting -mabi options and there are repeated -mno-thumb-interwork options" then I agree with your "does not look right" statement. > But if you want "-mabi=apcs-gnu -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-thumb-interwork" > then it should already work correctly without my change in > arch/arm/config.mk. As I said, no, I don't want that. I want the right -mabi option only, and I'd like a single -mno-thumb-interwork option. But what I don't understand is the discrepancy which I see between the CC_OPTIONS resulting from include/generated/cc_options.mk and the actual command line options used to generate e.g. edminiv2. > Best regards, > Daniel Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
