This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Building arm toolchain with soft floating point (was: Re: non local labels in some handcoded assembly)
- From: robert <robert at muth dot org>
- To: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:30:41 -0400
- Subject: Re: Building arm toolchain with soft floating point (was: Re: non local labels in some handcoded assembly)
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3F4B7D28.email@example.com>
Yes, this will be my last message on this in this forum.
And yes the howto contained some more recent (and desperate attempts) to
eliminate the fp code.
I have just rerolled the howto to an ealier version.
My recent tootlchain attempts which ultimately failed because of glibc.
consisted in hacking the gcc spec file to always use -msoft-float
for compilation and to add -without-fp to the glibc configuration.
This resulted in a bunch of undefined basic math/arithm symbols during make.
This is described in another posting to this list which I was not able to send
all morning. ;-(
I'll have a look at you goole finding next.
On Tuesday 26 August 2003 11:30, Dan Kegel wrote:
> robert wrote:
> > I managed to build a cross compilation a while abck with as described in
> > http://www.muth.org/Robert/Patch/
> > The problem with this toolchain, that glibc contained assembly code
> > for a totally obsolete arm fp coprocessor.
> > My recent efforts are to get rid of this code and have the floating point
> > stuff all in software.
> Hmm. Looking at how you built the bootstrap gcc:
> ./configure --prefix=$cwd/../usr --target=arm-linux
> --program-prefix=arm- \ --disable-threads -with-cpu=strongarm110
> -enable-languages=c --disable-shared --without-fpu make
> make CFLAGS+=-msoft-float
> That looks a bit fishy. Why the initial make folowed by a make
> Comparing with what a couple other folks have done,
> makes me wonder if you shouldn't be adding the
> --with-softfloat-support=internal option when you build gcc. (I wouldn't
> know; I'm just a google junkie.)
> This may be getting a bit offtopic for the libc-alpha list...
> maybe we should move this thread to the gcc or crossgcc list?
> - Dan