-msoft-float

Nick Burrett nick at dsvr.net
Tue Jun 5 10:03:08 PDT 2001


David Boddie <davidb at mcs.st-and.ac.uk> writes:

> On 5 Jun 2001, Nick Burrett wrote:
> 
> > David Boddie <davidb at mcs.st-and.ac.uk> writes:
> > 
> > > On 5 Jun 2001, Nick Burrett wrote:
> > > 
> > > > David Boddie <davidb at mcs.st-and.ac.uk> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > On 5 Jun 2001, Nick Burrett wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > It is possible to do this, but it has never been fully tested.  However,
> > > > > > I don't see the advantage of doing this, since code size will be bigger
> > > > > > and the software floating point libraries are much slower than the FPE.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can the latest version of gcc for RISC OS manage this?
> > > > 
> > > > It used to, but I turned it off. I decided it was pointless since UnixLib,
> > > > the SharedClibrary and various RISC OS modules use FP instructions.
> > > 
> > > OK, so if an application spends a lot of time outside these then there
> > > may be a gain.
> > 
> > No. But that's the problem, when you comment on a particular sentence rather
> > than considering the e-mail as a whole, then replying to that. :-)
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean, but I was assuming that by using SCLib/UnixLib
> less there is more potential for improvement whereas you presumably were
> referring to the difficulty/disadvantages of building things with
> soft-float support?

yes. You are right. Using sclib/uinixlib less, there would be more room for
improvement, iff the soft-float code is made better.

> > To get the latest CVS version, just do:
> >   $ cvs update -A
> > 
> > At least then if I do make the changes for -msoft-float, you'll be able
> > to get them.
> 
> Well, I'll familiarise myself with the library and possibly make some
> changes, then perhaps we can discuss whether it is worthwhile making the
> changes for -msoft-float. If that's OK with you?

It is fine with me.
 
nick.



More information about the gcc mailing list