This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:38:27AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> 2) does gcc-3.4.x have a similar problem? > > Yep, it already includes the ieee*.S files, but not the specific > fpa/softfpa/softvfp behaviour we're talking about. For that, you need > to apply: > > http://www.andric.com/cross/patches/gcc-3.4.0-arm-softfloat.patch.bz2 It does all seem rather confusing w.r.t. options: - mhard-float is hard FPA - msoft-float is soft FPA - no option specified is soft VFP Also, the gcc 3.4.[01] default, when no options are specified, is to use FPA on all ELF platforms except NetBSD. Are you sure you want to be changing that? BTW, Why are you forcing mcpu=xscale if no mcpu is specified? This would seem like you're introducing a bug, no? The gcc/config/arm/t-linux hunk might seem submitworthy, but I don't know enough about gcc internals to say anything sensible about that. cheers, Lennert ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |