ARM Neon Tests Failing on non-Neon Target

Richard Earnshaw rearnsha@arm.com
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.

R.



More information about the Gcc mailing list