Re: crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail

[Marius Groeger <mgroeger at sysgo dot com>]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Dan Kegel wrote:

> This emulation is slow.
> softfloat gets around this, and directly calls the fp software routines,
> so it's supposed to be faster.  This is nonstandard but increasingly
> popular.

Yes and no. My feeling is that people are forced to the softfloat
patch(es) since gcc3 is pickier about compiling options: many people
complain about the compiler telling them that libgcc's integer(!)
routines are not compatible with the application (typically
bootloaders or the kernel). Just because different -mXXX-float were
used.

Personally, I have decided not to use the softfloat patch just yet.
The only problem I ran into was compiling u-boot, and there I just
drop the -msoft-float (with care and grinding teeth, admittedly).

BTW Dan, have you tried the softfloat patched gcc on an ARM V4 system,
ie. _not_ XScale?

Regards,
Marius

-- 
Marius Groeger <mgroeger@sysgo.com>
Project Manager

SYSGO Real-Time Solutions AG | Embedded and Real-Time Software
Am Pfaffenstein 14
55270 Klein-Winternheim, Germany

Voice: +49-6136-9948-0 | FAX: +49-6136-9948-10
www.sysgo.com | www.elinos.com | www.osek.de

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com