From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:51:06 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC][PATCH] ARMV7: Patch to fix hard float build issues In-Reply-To: References: <1298042212-12260-1-git-send-email-raghuveer.murthy@ti.com> <4D5EA603.8010402@free.fr> <4D5FC34B.5050309@ahsoftware.de> Message-ID: <4D5FCACA.1060606@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 19/02/2011 14:25, M?ns Rullg?rd a ?crit : >> So whats the reasoning to use -msoft-float as it is currently done? To >> confuse people? ;) > > I guess it's there to make sure no floating-point instructions make it > into u-boot, even though floats are not used in the code. Perhaps > someone was paranoid. I think also that there is no choice but to have a float option for ARM C, either 'soft' or 'hard' (or 'softfp', actually, which is 'hard' with the 'soft' calling conventions), because the C compiler does not allow 'no floats', and anyway the C language *requires* to have some sort of float support. Actually if you don't specify any float option, the C toolchain will choose one, which is just the same in the end: *some* float option is chosen. And since some option must be chosen, I prefer that U-Boot make the explicit decision, and choose soft float for the reasons I already exposed. Amicalement, -- Albert.