On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 17:40 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> I discovered that if you build a plain arm-elf toolchain, the default
> float-abis for gcc and gas don't match. I added this patch locally to
> make it "just work" but it seems to me it would be better to have the
> defaults match, although
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >> But, of course, arm-elf is really a dead ABI at this point...
> >
> > hmmm... if it's dead enough, it becomes a moot point, doesn't it?
>
> It's pretty dead. Richard Earnshaw recently suggested deprecating
> arm-elf in GCC 4.6. I think that's reas
> If it isn't, then you can either punt on arm-elf, or enable some
> EABI functionality there. If, on the other hand, you think there's
> a problem when using the EABI, then we should talk about how to
> solve it.
EABI works fine, we're just working through our array of
things-to-be-tested and a
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Yes, but presumably you could make those pseudo-ops ARM-specific,
>> rather than EABI specific?
>
> Could, but gcc doesn't always know the specific .fpu. I imagine
> version-sync nightmares too, so IMHO we should either do a
> command-line thing from gcc, or just forget it i
> Yes, but presumably you could make those pseudo-ops ARM-specific,
> rather than EABI specific?
Could, but gcc doesn't always know the specific .fpu. I imagine
version-sync nightmares too, so IMHO we should either do a
command-line thing from gcc, or just forget it if EABI works.
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I thought this stuff already existed in arm-eabi toolchains. If it
>> doesn't exist in arm-elf, then you should be able to use it there too.
>
> The EABI toolchains use eabi-specific pseudos to set the .fpu.
Yes, but presumably you could make those pseudo-ops ARM-specific,
> The compiler should generate a pseudo-op that is processed by the
> assembler. If the right pseudo-op doesn't already exist, it needs
> to be added to both the assembler and compiler.
The assembler has pseudo-s for ".fpu" which says what kind of FPU it
has, but the generic hard/soft choice is
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I am strongly of the opinion that the right way to do this is to have
>> the compiler generate appropriate directives in the assembly files it
>> generates -- and to have users do the same. Relying on the defaults is
>> just too dangerous.
>
> So... where should this go?
Th
> I am strongly of the opinion that the right way to do this is to have
> the compiler generate appropriate directives in the assembly files it
> generates -- and to have users do the same. Relying on the defaults is
> just too dangerous.
So... where should this go?
DJ Delorie wrote:
> I discovered that if you build a plain arm-elf toolchain, the default
> float-abis for gcc and gas don't match. I added this patch locally to
> make it "just work" but it seems to me it would be better to have the
> defaults match, although I'm not sure how to enforce that. C
10 matches
Mail list logo
