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 2005-04-11 at 01:33:14 J. Scott Merritt wrote: > I applied the arm-softfloat.patch from your website and performed a > crosstool build for gcc-3.4.3-glibc-2.3.4. I believe the VFP format > is being used, because an fprintf of a floating number produces the > *huge* result shown elsewhere, Yes, make sure you also patch glibc with either glibc-vfp.patch from my site, or if you have a recent crosstool, it's also included as glibc-fp-byteorder.patch. > however, even with the softfloat patch it looks as though the VFP > format flag is not getting set in the ELF header (should be 0x600 > and its still at 0x200). > - Should the softfloat patch update the ELF header to report > VFP format or is this still missing ? The softfloat patch modifies the flags that are passed by gcc to the assembler (SUBTARGET_ASM_FLOAT_SPEC) to: 1) -mfpu=softvfp, if you give gcc no floating point options 2) -mfpu=softfpa, if you give gcc the -msoft-float option 3) -mfpu=fpa, if you give gcc the -mhard-float option Can you show us output of arm-linux-gcc -v -c, with just a random .c file? > - I assume that I need to also copy the glibc-vfp.patch forward > to glibc-2.3.4 to solve the fprintf 1.0 problem ? Yes.
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |