On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:54:31PM +0300, Petko Manolov wrote: > > The current advantage of Maverick over something like iWMMXt, > > considering that Debian is still hardfpa, is that Maverick is on > > coprocessors 4,5,6 so it doesn't conflict with FPA, whereas if you want > > to use iWMMXt at all, you have to use either softfloat or EABI for > > everything because it conflicts with FPA. > > Even though FPA and Maverick doesn't conflict in hardware aspect, it is > still impossible to mix both in the same dynamically linked executable. > The problems are numerous, but think about the data representation in the > memory (and within the FPUs), C argument passing, return values (as per > current GCC convention), etc.
If you want to emit Crunch assembly from C code, it indeed won't work without a bunch of hacking. (I have successfully used inline Crunch assembly in FPA binaries, though.) > The only sane way of using Maverick code is by having it in a > statically linked executable. Or by using EABI? > This, however, implies that the corresponding libc has been built > with Maverick support. Why can't we use a Crunch app on top of a, say, VFP soft-float libc? As long as the calling conventions are the same (which they are, in this case), I don't see why it would be a problem that the app uses Crunch while the C library does not.. cheers, Lennert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
