From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:22:26 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] Query on CONFIG_SYS_THUMB_BUILD In-Reply-To: <87zjblltju.fsf@nbsps.com> References: <5464DC59.2040707@gmail.com> <677d8f6509228b7afd9474e6af2b5191@agner.ch> <350403c10d5a64a57fb5ef9ab7efb0ab@agner.ch> <20141119074214.3d414ce6@lilith> <20141119065835.5C60A380316@gemini.denx.de> <87sihfm9ti.fsf@nbsps.com> <20141119184857.112c802d@lilith> <87fvdfm43p.fsf@nbsps.com> <20141120130425.182928c3@lilith> <87zjblltju.fsf@nbsps.com> Message-ID: <20141121132226.7ae6f75c@lilith> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Bill, On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:34:45 -0500, Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > Originally Daniel Gutson used '-mauto-it' and then it was converted to > '-mimplicit-it'. Ok, so I was right in my gut(son)[1] feeling that -mauto-it was a predecessor of -mimplicit-it -- and actually only in the first iteration(s) of the patch that would have introduced it. > I am not sure if '-mauto-it' exists in the wild. I have never heard of > that option before seeing this email thread. Also my assembler says, > > Assembler messages: > Error: unrecognized option -mauto-it > > I have built with the most recent binutils, gcc4.9.1 using crosstool-ng. > Maybe only some non-mainline tools picked up this '-mauto-it' patch. I > don't think it hurts to support '-mauto-it', but an assembler test > should be done to see if it accepts the option. I've gone through the binutils git tree, and -mauto-it is mentioned only in a patch that fixes the gas /docs/ which erroneously mentioned -mauto-it where it should have mentioned -mimplicit-it. Hence, I think we should not test for -mauto-it at all, and not mention it even. Stefan, can you resubmit without the -mauto-it part, and renaming AFLAGS_AUTOIT into AFLAGS_IMPLICIT_IT? > hth, > Bill Pringlemeir. Amicalement, -- Albert. [1] I am never ashamed of doing lame puns.