On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 11:59 +0200, Sébastien Michelland wrote:
> libgcc's fp-bit.c is quite slow and most modern/developed architectures
> have switched to using the soft-fp library. This patch does so for
> free-standing/unknown-OS SH3/SH4 builds, using soft-fp's default parameters
> for the most
Hi,
I've committed the attached patch to fix the full gcc + libstdc++ build on
sh-elf.
Best regards,
Oleg Endo
On Sat, 2024-07-06 at 07:35 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 7/5/24 1:28 AM, Sébastien Michelland wrote:
> > Hi Oleg!
> >
> > > I don't understand why this is being limited to SH3 and
Hi again!
It shouldn't be needed to build GDB separately or to specify the -m32 flags.
Not sure why you have to do that.
It was in the document you sent, especially some warning about
sh-elf-run not working on 64-bit hosts. Guess that's solved by now.
I've just tried the following configur
On 7/8/24 5:52 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
From what I know it started during the earlier cygwin days in the 90s,
originally contracted by Hitachi to complement their own in-house C compiler
and also to allow sh-linux to happen at some point. It was entertained by
Renesas for a while through furt
Hi,
> > > > The default sh-elf configuration has no multi-libs for SH3 and SH4
> > > > variants
> > > > without FPU (from what I can see). So it won't use soft-fp so much
> > > > during
> > > > sim testing. So please change to soft-fp for sh*, not just SH3/SH4.
> >
> > Got it, done that loc
On 7/6/24 6:12 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
This is almost certainly a poorly written pattern. I just fixed a bunch
of these, but not this one. Essentially a recent change in the generic
parts of the compiler is exposing some bugs in the SH backend.
The patterns were written and tested to the b
Hi!
The default sh-elf configuration has no multi-libs for SH3 and SH4 variants
without FPU (from what I can see). So it won't use soft-fp so much during
sim testing. So please change to soft-fp for sh*, not just SH3/SH4.
Got it, done that locally, and will update patch once tested.
Here's
Hi,
( For some weird reason I keep losing Sebastien's messages ... )
On Sat, 2024-07-06 at 07:35 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 7/5/24 1:28 AM, Sébastien Michelland wrote:
> > Hi Oleg!
> >
> > > I don't understand why this is being limited to SH3 and SH4 only?
> > > Almost all SH4 systems out th
On 7/5/24 1:28 AM, Sébastien Michelland wrote:
Hi Oleg!
I don't understand why this is being limited to SH3 and SH4 only?
Almost all SH4 systems out there have an FPU (unless special
configurations
are used). So I'd say if switching to soft-fp, then for SH-anything, not
just SH3/SH4.
If
Hi Oleg!
I don't understand why this is being limited to SH3 and SH4 only?
Almost all SH4 systems out there have an FPU (unless special configurations
are used). So I'd say if switching to soft-fp, then for SH-anything, not
just SH3/SH4.
If it yields some improvements for some users, I'm all f
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 19:28 +0200, Sébastien Michelland wrote:
> On 2024-07-03 17:59, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 7/3/24 3:59 AM, Sébastien Michelland wrote:
> > > libgcc's fp-bit.c is quite slow and most modern/developed architectures
> > > have switched to using the soft-fp library. This patch do
On 2024-07-03 17:59, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/3/24 3:59 AM, Sébastien Michelland wrote:
libgcc's fp-bit.c is quite slow and most modern/developed architectures
have switched to using the soft-fp library. This patch does so for
free-standing/unknown-OS SH3/SH4 builds, using soft-fp's default
paramet
On 7/3/24 3:59 AM, Sébastien Michelland wrote:
libgcc's fp-bit.c is quite slow and most modern/developed architectures
have switched to using the soft-fp library. This patch does so for
free-standing/unknown-OS SH3/SH4 builds, using soft-fp's default parameters
for the most part, most notably
13 matches
Mail list logo
