This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


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: [RFC] ARM Floating point defaults


On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 10:37:28AM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> >So one option would be to just remove the checking entirely until we can
> >come up with a more robust solution -- it's then caveat emptor for those
> >developing with GCC, but that's probably less of a nightmare than having
> >legitimate objects that the linker spuriously rejects (most real users
> >of GCC only have one type of target at any one time).
> 
> I would actually agree with this.  The tests and warnings about floating 
> point mismatches have caused quite a few bug reports, and to my 
> knowledge have not proved to be that useful at all.
> 
> I am however concerned that we do not have a proper scheme for labelling 
> object files so that these warnings could be correctly generated.  So I 
> would be much happier if instead of just deleteing these checks we could 
> come up with a replacement for them and start implementing it.

I have worked with one user who found these checks extremely useful.
Once you're working in an environment that has, say, both FPA and VFP
objects floating around that shouldn't be linked together, it's handy
to have the linker do extra sanity checking.

The current scheme still needs replacing, of course.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz


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