From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759463AbWLFBe1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:34:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759467AbWLFBe1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:34:27 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.234]:33766 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759463AbWLFBe1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:34:27 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KsteO3MY6O1B/WmCei+nJ/2JYivgheYuTrOGpQU2UlGj7TQ6G7tecdFMQOYjvWr3BjlHL6uSeZKd/sINOtZcRjFdbIILXSDpw8/qN46x3Bv/s9iTTJ3Hk/ee9041jMi9LxweHifpger0csj8zJuk92iQRD5UBu1HANww3GdnvLo= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:34:25 -0800 From: "Michael K. Edwards" To: "Michael K. Edwards" , "Linux Kernel List" , "Sam Ravnborg" , linux-arm-toolchain@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, crossgcc@sourceware.org Subject: Re: More ARM binutils fuckage In-Reply-To: <20061206002226.GK24038@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061205193357.GF24038@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20061206002226.GK24038@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/5/06, Russell King wrote: > There is no such thing as soft VFP. Patches have been floating around for quite some time that implement soft float with VFP parameter passing conventions (which notably implies native endianness, unlike FPA). They all seem to derive from Nicolas Pitre's patch at http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/pipermail/linux-arm/2003-October/006436.html , which is said to have some bugs but to supply the majority of the needed functionality. (See, for instance, http://www.busybox.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/branches/buildroot.mjn3/toolchain/gcc/3.4.6/arm-softfloat.patch.conditional?rev=14854&view=auto.) I assume that I'm not the first to fix it up for gcc 4.1.1. > I can only talk from the requirements of the kernel. gcc 3.4.3 is > the minimum for ARM, which with binutils 2.17 will allow you to build > the kernel as OABI in *any* configuration. No patches required for > either. It would be nice if this appeared prominently in Documentation/arm/whatever so that vendors who are stuck on gcc 3.3 (and binutils so old that they comment things out in vmlinux.lds) can be encouraged to move forward. Cheers, - Michael