From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Thompson Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:59:16 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] Building for da830 fails In-Reply-To: <20100510211709.DCEBBC67D4E@gemini.denx.de> References: <004001caeddc$719c30d0$54d49270$@raj@ti.com> <4BE42048.7000701@ge.com> <20100507151009.55582E8AAC9@gemini.denx.de> <4BE42FE9.3070208@psyent.com> <4BE43218.2060209@freescale.com> <20100510211709.DCEBBC67D4E@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4BE91C64.9050402@ge.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 10/05/10 22:17, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <4BE43218.2060209@freescale.com> you wrote: >> which means that in order to support support printing 64-bit numbers on ARM, >> we might need to completely rewrite print_size() to avoid division on 64-bit >> numbers. > > This actually makes little sense to me. Avoiding this here will just > make the problem pop up somewhare else later. True, but the extra library (and abi workaround) bloat is not necessary in this particular case. The proper fix is to either insist on a toolchain that supports 64bit divides, or avoid using features not available in all toolchains that you wish to support. In the later case, rewriting the function would be a good idea wouldn't it? The eabi stub you submitted is only good as long as C++ and exceptions are not used by U-Boot. Exceptions in particular are a powerful way to clean up error handling code - can we ever say never? Regards, Nick.