ARM Neon Tests Failing on non-Neon Target

Richard Earnshaw
Fri Apr 30 16:01:00 GMT 2010

On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 15:26 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > >   For EABI, this is done
> > > with .cpu, .arch and .fpu directives; for non-EABI you may need to write
> > > specs to pass command-line options to the assembler.  Creating an
> > > arm-rtemseabi or similar target and obsoleting the old-ABI version is what
> > > I'd suggest.  (Having the target not named *eabi* will make various
> > > testcases not run for it; it's unfortunate enough that EABI testcases need
> > > to match both arm*-*-*eabi* and arm*-*-symbianelf which is an existing
> > > EABI target not matching *eabi*.)
> > 
> > Is there any reason to stick with arm-elf as the basis for
> > arm-rtems?  It looks like arm-eabi is more generally used
> > and thus more tested and better supported.
> My advice is that arm-rtems become a deprecated target like arm-elf and 
> arm-linux, and that arm-rtemseabi be the new EABI-based target.

Speaking of which, we should probably formally deprecate the old arm-elf
derived targets in 4.6 so that we can remove them in 4.7.

Similarly, we should deprecate support for the FPA on ARM.


More information about the Gcc mailing list