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 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
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |