Hi,
Michael Hope :
> With our configuration, crosstool-NG sets CFLAGS to -pipe
> -fno-stack-protector -U_FORTIFY. This overrides the default -O2 -g
> for later stages and gives us an unoptimised GCC.
>
> The test build has just come in. Before:
>
> michaelh@crucis:$ time arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
On 13 November 2012 22:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 12.11.2012 03:27, schrieb Michael Hope:
>> I think I've found the problem. We pass -U_FORTIFY and
>> -fno-stack-protector to make the binary more universal, and the way
>> that crosstool-NG passes these flags on to the tool overrides the
>> de
Am 12.11.2012 03:27, schrieb Michael Hope:
> I think I've found the problem. We pass -U_FORTIFY and
> -fno-stack-protector to make the binary more universal, and the way
> that crosstool-NG passes these flags on to the tool overrides the
> default package flags and turns off any optimisations.
>
On 12 November 2012 14:17, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 11 November 2012 22:18, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 10 November 2012 05:11, "Frank Müller" wrote:
>>> Michael Hope :
My suspicion is that we/crosstool-NG enable extra features like
Graphite or GCC is built with a different level of che
On 11 November 2012 22:18, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 10 November 2012 05:11, "Frank Müller" wrote:
>> Michael Hope :
>>> My suspicion is that we/crosstool-NG enable extra features like
>>> Graphite or GCC is built with a different level of checking. If you
>>
>> I suspected Graphite as well and r
On 10 November 2012 05:11, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> Michael Hope :
>> My suspicion is that we/crosstool-NG enable extra features like
>> Graphite or GCC is built with a different level of checking. If you
>
> I suspected Graphite as well and removed it in my own builds without
> noticable differe
On 8 November 2012 21:32, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> I now had some time to try out making my own compiler, and started off with a
> few different configurations with crosstool-ng 1.16.0. Interestingly the
> results were as slow (if not slightly slower with almost 12 minutes) in
> compilation as L
I now had some time to try out making my own compiler, and started off with a
few different configurations with crosstool-ng 1.16.0. Interestingly the
results were as slow (if not slightly slower with almost 12 minutes) in
compilation as Linaro's gcc.
So maybe my question should not be why Lin
Hi
Michael Hope
> On 30 October 2012 22:11, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> > On 29 October 2012 16:28, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> >> Mans Rullgard wrote:
> >>> On 28 October 2012 18:08, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> >>> > For easier maintenance, we are now switching to Linaro. The image is
> set
> >>> up and
On 30 October 2012 22:11, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 29 October 2012 16:28, "Frank Müller" wrote:
>> Mans Rullgard wrote:
>>> On 28 October 2012 18:08, "Frank Müller" wrote:
>>> > For easier maintenance, we are now switching to Linaro. The image is set
>>> up and I can compile, however I notice
On 29 October 2012 16:28, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> On 28 October 2012 18:08, "Frank Müller" wrote:
>> > For easier maintenance, we are now switching to Linaro. The image is set
>> up and I can compile, however I notice a peculiar fact: the binary
>> distribution of Linaro'
Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 28 October 2012 18:08, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> > For easier maintenance, we are now switching to Linaro. The image is set
> up and I can compile, however I notice a peculiar fact: the binary
> distribution of Linaro's gcc
> (https://launchpad.net/linaro-toolchain-binarie
On 28 October 2012 18:08, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> we have an ARM Cortex-A8 board where we are running our application. I am in
> charge of maintaining the Linux on it and the toolchain/SDK setup. So far
> we've been running Poky/OpenEmbedded and using the cross compiler that came
Dear all,
we have an ARM Cortex-A8 board where we are running our application. I am in
charge of maintaining the Linux on it and the toolchain/SDK setup. So far we've
been running Poky/OpenEmbedded and using the cross compiler that came about
during the compilation.
For easier maintenance, we
14 matches
Mail list logo
