Re: crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Marius Groeger wrote:
> 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.

Interesting.

> 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).

(? So when do you use -msoft-float now?)

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

No.  I've hardly tried it anywhere at all.  In fact, I haven't even
tried that patch that supposedly fixes printf("%f",0.0), since
I don't have time to look at it and see if it's safe even for
people not wanting softfloat.  (I can't accept any patches that
could harm any users, and I'm not sure if this one does yet.)

- Dan

--
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/

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