[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

2017-12-20 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105

Jeffrey A. Law  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||law at redhat dot com
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law  ---
Per c#5.

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

2017-12-20 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105

--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw  ---
Fixed.  We now select ARM10E as the default CPU when --with-float={hard,softfp}
is specified.

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

2017-12-20 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105

--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw  ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Dec 20 10:30:00 2017
New Revision: 255858

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255858=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/83105: Minor change of default CPU for arm-linux-gnueabi

When GCC for ARM/linux is configured with --with-float=hard, or
--with-float=softfp the compiler will now die when trying to build the
support libraries because the baseline architecture is too old to
support VFP (older versions of GCC just emitted the VFP instructions
anyway, even though they wouldn't run on that version of the
architecture; but we're now more prickly about it).

This patch fixed the problem by raising the default architecture
(actually the default CPU) to ARMv5te (ARM10e) when we need to generate
HW floating-point code.

PR target/83105
* config.gcc (arm*-*-linux*): When configured with --with-float=hard
or --with-float=softfp, set the default CPU to arm10e.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config.gcc

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

2017-12-19 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105

Richard Earnshaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-12-19
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

2017-12-19 Thread nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105

--- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Any reason why this should be a supportable configuration?  I want hard
> float, but don't care what CPU/FPU I target...

i think there should be a baseline target that
provides the widest possible compatibility when
one wants to distribute a binary. (in which
case the user should not try to hardcode a
cpu/fpu name in their gcc build script)

i think it should work for --with-float=hard
and arm*-gnueabihf target, but if not then
this configuration should be rejected earlier.
(to me it makes sense to raise the baseline
of arm*-gnueabihf to armv5te but leave
arm*-gnueabi at armv5t)

i don't use many different toolchain build
scripts, but from that small set 2 got broken
by this change, one of them is the glibc
test script which required a workaround like
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-12/msg00611.html
i think requiring such change is suboptimal.

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

2017-12-19 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105

--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw  ---
The baseline target CPU for arm linux is ARM10TDMI (armv5t), but that processor
only had VFPv1 and GCC has never supported that.  Code generated historically
was incompatible with that target and if you ran it on an ARM10TDMI it would
crash.

We could, of course raise the baseline to arm10e (armv5te), which has VFPv2
(and some additional instructions).

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

2017-12-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Any reason why this should be a supportable configuration?  I want hard float,
but don't care what CPU/FPU I target...

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

2017-11-22 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |8.0