Re: crosstool-0.40 preview

[Robert Schwebel <robert at schwebel dot de>]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 10:53:48AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Then let's get gcc to state its behavior more explicitly. We can't go
> on forever with hacky gcc patches, even if they work great for us.

Good idea :-)

I understand the current gcc documentation like this: 

	* -mfpu=name: specifies hard floating point. Values for name
	  are: fpa, fpe2, fpe3, maverick, vfp

	* additional -msoft-float: generate software floating point
	  for the format specified above. 

As long as the Makefiles specify what they want, everything is file.
When building things like u-boot and kernel/userland you still have to
agree on one variant and people will problably have different ideas
about what is right for them. 

I would have no problem to build things in a consistent way, because I
can easily configure PTXdist to do it in such a way. But I understand
that people want to do things like arm-softfloat-linux-gnu-gcc foo.c and
expect a.out to run on "their" systems. 

So the question is: what should toolchains do by default, when no
-m*float* argument is given? Should we build 

	arm-softvfp-linux-gnu
	arm-softfpa-linux-gnu

toolchains? All that is pretty uggly - normally you want to build _one_
toolchain for all kind of stuff and configure it the way you need it. 

I hope that somebody has a better idea... 

Robert 
-- 
 Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
   Handelsregister:  Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
     Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany
   Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |  Fax: +49-5121-206917-9


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