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] |
> > Changing "920t" to "arm920t" in arm920.dat unfortunately did not solve the > > problem as the following excerpt from demo.sh shows. Looking at the arm > regular expressions shows that I can only specify an arm9 or an arm9tdmi > target rather than an arm920t. Do I need to get a patch from somewhere? I > know I don't have the nomenclature down pat yet, but I think I was told that > > arm9 instruction set might work ok for this board. This I have to confirm. I'm just catching this thread on the fly, but there is no instruction difference between a arm9tdmi core and 920 core. The 920 core is just a arm9tdmi with caching & MMU if I remeber correctly. So from GCCs point of view it's the same. I would use the arm9tdmi option, or simply arm9 if your not generating thumb code. Nic ------------------------------------------------- ------ 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] |