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] |
Michael: The "T" means "thumb", the ARM 16-bit instruction set. The arm920 option tells gcc to emit 32-bit arm920 instructions. If you want arm920 _thumb_ instructions, you add a -thumb. b.g. On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:32:05PM +0100, Michael Keller wrote: > I have the most recent releases: binutils 2.13.2.1and gcc 3.2.2. > I now tried with 'arm920', which is accepted by the assembler. > Unfortunately I have little idea, of how different each of these > processors are... > > facit: 'arm920t' is a valid flag to gcc, but doesn't seem to be accepted > even by the newest assembler, - this leaves one to speculate, how it was > possible to test this flag in the first place? or am I wrong? > > So, do you think, -mcpu=arm920 -mtune=arm920t would be the best > combination for an ARM920T? > > Thank you, > michael > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Earnshaw" <rearnsha@arm.com> > To: "mk" <m.keller@stud.unibas.ch> > Cc: <crossgcc@sources.redhat.com>; <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> > Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 4:43 PM > Subject: Re: *Assembler* Error: unrecognized option `-marm920t' > > > > > I built a cross compiler for arm-elf on a linux host. The build > worked > > > without error messages. The only (possibly) fancy configuration was > for > > > the final gcc build: > > > > > > [michael]$ ../gcc-3.2.2/configure > > > --with-headers=/home/michael/gp32/cross/install/arm-elf/include > > > --target=$TARGET --prefix=$PREFIX --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld > > > --enable-languages=c,c++ > > > > > > > > > Now when I compile some very straightforward C source code (< 20 > lines), > > > I get an *Assembler* error message: > > > > > > [michael]$ arm-elf-gcc -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions > > > > -mcpu=arm920t -fno-exceptions -fno-common -fno-builtin -ffreestanding > > > -mstructure-size-boundary=32 -mno-thumb-interwork -c -Wall -I$INC > > > gpmain.c > > > > > > Assembler messages: > > > Error: unrecognized option `-marm920t' > > > > > > >> Note, that the -mcpu=arm920t switch for the C compiler is > recognized! > > > > > > Can anybody help? Do I have to compile with different options? Or > > > rebuild gcc with different options? > > > > > > Thanks very much in advance. > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > You don't say what version of binutils you are using. I suspect that > it > > is sufficiently old that it doesn't have support for assembling for > the > > 920. Possible solutions to this are: > > > > - Upgrade binutils > > - Target a different processor (try StrongARM for example). > > - Use -march=armv4t -tune=arm920t (This will give you the same code as > > with -mcpu=arm920t, but will pass armv4t to the assembler instead > (it's > > far more likely to accept that)) > > > > R. > > > > > ------ > Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ > Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com > -- Bill Gatliff Do you do embedded GNU? I do! http://billgatliff.com ------ 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] |