[U-Boot-Users] FW: FW: [PATCH][ARM] Rationalize ARM compiler options
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Pearse [mailto:peter.pearse@arm.com] Sent: 19 February 2008 08:55 To: 'Ulf Samuelsson' Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] FW: [PATCH][ARM] Rationalize ARM compiler options
-----Original Message----- From: Ulf Samuelsson [mailto:ulf@atmel.com] Sent: 18 February 2008 23:05 To: Peter Pearse; u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] FW: [PATCH][ARM] Rationalize
ARM compiler
options
"
If so I'll put -msoft-float in all arm config.mk files.
Please DON'T! This *forces* you to compile U-Boot with a compiler suite which is configured to generate soft-float. If you happen to use a compiler which does not support soft-float, I.E: uses NWFPE, then the build will fail.
Locally remove the option.
Also what happens if you have a toolchain built without V5 support? Will the build complete?
Locally change the option.
My postion remains that U-Boot is supplied to build with the latest ELDK toolchain. Supporting all possible toolchains (and all possible builds of those toolchains) is too much effort.
(even including the ARM RealView tools, which would, of course, provide several major advantages ;-) )
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. "
Why not make this user tunable. If you want to mess about with V4 vs V5 support you should,
but don't
enforce this for people that could care less.
Exactly - it builds & works OOB with the ELDK toolchain, no effort, other than installation, for those who dont care.
Those users who do care can change the code locally to suit their own requirements.
If they have sufficient knowledge to care I dont see this being much extra effort for them.....
And if they want to encourage others to do the same they can document it in doc/README.ARM.config.mk.
Regards
Peter
Dear Peter,
in message 000601c872d5$c3c00140$9a4d010a@Emea.Arm.com you wrote:
My postion remains that U-Boot is supplied to build with the latest ELDK toolchain. Supporting all possible toolchains (and all possible builds of those toolchains) is too much effort.
I disagree here.
We should really try (as we have benn doing all the time before) to make U-Boot build with as many toolchains as possible with reasonable effort. Of course, each of us can test only a few, and it's perfectly fine when you as custodian decide to test with a specific a set of tools only.
But we are definitely open for requests to support othe rtol chains as well - even if we cannot actively help to develop such support.
If they have sufficient knowledge to care I dont see this being much extra effort for them.....
And if they want to encourage others to do the same they can document it in doc/README.ARM.config.mk.
We should also accept patches to make U-Boot build with other tool chains - assuming it doesn't break any of the existing code.
Regarding the soft-float issue: I still think this should work with any tool chain version, assuming it was configured correctly.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (2)
-
Peter Pearse -
Wolfgang Denk