This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug bootstrap/11169] bootstrap failure after passing configure options
- From: "rearnsha at arm dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 13 Jun 2003 11:27:09 -0000
- Subject: [Bug bootstrap/11169] bootstrap failure after passing configure options
- References: <20030612091735.11169.jeroen.dobbelaere@acunia.com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11169
------- Additional Comments From rearnsha@arm.com 2003-06-13 11:27 -------
Subject: Re: bootstrap failure after passing
configure options
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org said:
> - Will this patch be applied to binutils ?
Yes, I hope to do that later today.
> A question : - what is the benefit of having two 'soft-float' versions
> ? (one with fpa ordening, one with vfp ordening ?) Won't this just add
> more confusion ?
It is compatible with a "soft-vfp+vfp" compilation model at the procedure
interface. Code can use VFP instructions internally, but not use VFP
registers for passing or returning arguments. That can be called from
code that is purely soft-vfp (as thumb code would have to be). Hence you
can use VFP instructions in ARM code subroutines to accelerate Thumb code.
Yes, it will cause some confusion, initially; but I think that on balance,
migrating to a pure-endian model is a Good Thing (TM).
R.