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>
Cc: crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:08:46 +0200
Subject: Re: ldrb vs ldrh in gcc-3.4.4 (ARM)
References: <43033B8C.6050100@imc-berlin.de>

Hi,

And I don't understand why he is using two ldrb instructions! Both compilers were called with "-g -O0" Using -O3 creates smaller code but still uses ldrb.

Passing "-march=armv4" seems to help. Passing "-mcpu=arm920t" instead helps too.

I used Dan's crosstool to build the toolchain. How can I built a tool chain that makes "good code" (TM) for an arm920t _by default_?

--
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
- Re: ldrb vs ldrh in gcc-3.4.4 (ARM)
  - From: Bill Gatliff

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

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