[U-Boot-Users] FW: [PATCH][ARM] Rationalize ARM compiler options

[Peter Pearse]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Pearse [mailto:peter.pearse at arm.com] 
> Sent: 14 February 2008 13:59
> To: 'wd at denx.de'
> Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH][ARM] Rationalize ARM 
> compiler options
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wd at denx.de [mailto:wd at denx.de]
> > Sent: 13 February 2008 22:51
> > To: Peter Pearse
> > Cc: U-Boot-Users
> > Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH][ARM] Rationalize ARM compiler 
> > options
> > 
> > 
> > Please don't add too many empty lines.
> >
> 
> OK - I'll change thie when I re-submit. 
> I just like to be able to ripple thru my buffers to animate 
> the differences between almost identical files.
>  
> > Why exactly are you dropping -msoft-float here?
> 
> I was under the delusion that dropping this protected against 
> incorporation of floating point instructions. 
> 
> Have I now got a clear understanding of the position:-
> 
> "
> The use of floating point arithmetic in the U-Boot code is 
> deprecated. 
> However the ELDK toolchains provide floating point support 
> and were built with the -msoft-float option. This option is 
> supplied to the code to ensure any floating point arithmetic 
> included links in the floating point support code correctly. 
> " 
> 
> If so I'll put -msoft-float in all arm config.mk files.
> 
> > 
> > > -# Make ARMv5 to allow more compilers to work, even though its v6.
> > > -PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=armv5
> > > +PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=armv6
> > 
> > Why exactly are you changing this?
> 
> arm1136 is an ARM Architecture V6 processor.
> 
> My position is:
> "
> The main (arm) tree processor options should use the correct 
> architecture option for the processor (provided this option 
> is accepted without error or warning  by the ELDK arm 
> toolchains) Users using compilers which do not support the 
> correct architecture should be made aware of this.
> Should they wish to use another compiler they can change this 
> option locally.  
> "
> 
> I would also accept
> (reluctantly, although it saves lots of space I could waste 
> as empty lines ;-) )
> 
> "
> For simplicity, the main (arm) tree processor options use the 
> lowest common architecture option (armv4), whatever the 
> processor implements. Users can change this option locally.  
> "
> 
> At present we have a mixture.....
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter
> 
>