[Bug bootstrap/11169] bootstrap failure after passing configure options

[drow@mvista.com]

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 drow@mvista.com  2003-06-12 17:17 -------
Subject: Re:  bootstrap failure after passing configure options

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:12:01PM -0000, rearnsha@arm.com wrote:
> Hmm, yes, you are correct.  I was confusing using/missing -msoft-float and 
> configurations that default to that combination.
> 
> More precisely, there are four possible permutations that have to be 
> supported:
> 
> 0x000 means hard-float, FPA instructions
> 0x200 means soft-float, with FPA double ordering (mixed endian)
> 0x400 means hard-float, VFP instructions
> 0x600 means soft-float, with VFP double ordering (natural endian)
> 
> I wonder if you could try the following patch to GAS, to see if it will 
> solve the problem:

[Patch to default Linux to FPA ordering]

I'm of mixed minds about this - on the one hand, other arm-linux
distributions use FPA; on the other, Intel defines VFP for the default
(am I right about that?).  I suppose it wouldn't hurt to make people
have to ask for VFP.