On 18 February 2014 13:55, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I honestly don't remember what -mfpu=softvfp+vfp is without going to
> look it up... you're talking about code that was written 11 years ago!
I know! Sorry to bring sorrow after so many years... ;)
> the +vfp was probably meant to imply
> tha
On 18/02/14 12:59, Renato Golin wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I found some emails about you implementing softvfp back in 2003, and
> I'd like to know what is the expected behaviour when it conflicts with
> the target triple, for example:
>
> -triple arm-linux-gnueabihf + -mfpu=sofvfp+vfp
>
> In this ca
Richard,
I found some emails about you implementing softvfp back in 2003, and
I'd like to know what is the expected behaviour when it conflicts with
the target triple, for example:
-triple arm-linux-gnueabihf + -mfpu=sofvfp+vfp
In this case, in LLVM, the triple sets "-float-abi=hard" but the fp
