This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org 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: ldrb vs ldrh in gcc-3.4.4 (ARM)

From: Steven Scholz <steven dot scholz at imc-berlin dot de>
To: Philip Blundell <pb at reciva dot com>
Cc: crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:00:23 +0200
Subject: Re: ldrb vs ldrh in gcc-3.4.4 (ARM)
References: <43033B8C.6050100@imc-berlin.de> <1124286169.18243.0.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com>

Philip Blundell wrote:

On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 15:28 +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

Hi there,

I noticed that gcc-3.4.4 for ARM is using byte wise loading instructions although word wise would be much better. Does anyone know why? gcc-3.3.3 is doing it as I would expect.

Check your -march= setting.


Permissible names are: armv2, armv2a, armv3, armv3m, armv4, armv4t,
                       armv5, armv5t, armv5te.

Which one would be appropriate for an Atmel AT91RM9200?

And while at it: How important is -mcpu= ? E.g. arm920t vs. arm9tdmi?
--
Steven

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ldrb vs ldrh in gcc-3.4.4 (ARM)
  - From: Lennert Buytenhek

References:
- ldrb vs ldrh in gcc-3.4.4 (ARM)
  - From: Steven Scholz
- Re: ldrb vs ldrh in gcc-3.4.4 (ARM)
  - From: Philip Blundell

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