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]

Re: crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail

From: Daniel Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
To: Marius Groeger <mgroeger at sysgo dot com>
Cc: mingz at ele dot uri dot edu, crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:56:35 -0800
Subject: Re: crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail
References: <1077805756.1619.49.camel@dyn251.ele.uri.edu> <403E112A.6000403@kegel.com> <Pine.LNX.4.56.0402270900220.1955@mag.sysgo.com> <403F1222.3010507@kegel.com> <Pine.LNX.4.56.0402271417440.3722@mag.sysgo.com>

Marius Groeger wrote:

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

See my other posts on the matter. The patch in question makes GCC call
the AS with cpu=xscale. With good reason it seems, as the softfloat
routines don't compile with anything less. So I believe that patch is
only suitable for --with-cpu=xscale gcc's.


Ah, so even for people not running with -msoft-float, the patch
would cause trouble for non-xscale cpus?  If that's the
case, we probably need a patch with a bit more finesse.
- Dan

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

References:
- crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail
  - From: Ming Zhang
- Re: crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail
  - From: Marius Groeger
- Re: crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: crosstool-0.27 demo-arm.sh fail
  - From: Marius Groeger

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