> Does specifying -fpu=SoftVFP to asasm when building sys.o not fix > the problem?
Alas no. It gives: error: sys.o uses FPA instructions, whereas so.riscos does not error: sys.o uses hardware FP, whereas so.riscos uses software FP Would gas be a better bet than asasm? Is there no way of making the FPA flags of sys.o match those of so.riscos? After all, linking stuff that is totally free of FP instructions must be quite a common situation. It feels as if one is wrestling with some bureaucracy out of Kafka. Are there any docs on where Elf files keep their FPA flags? Say it not in Gath, but stooping to the depths of bit-walloping might be quicker - a bit like bribing an official ;) ? -- Gavin Wraith (ga...@wra1th.plus.com) Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/ _______________________________________________ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
