Thanks for the info. It was about what I expected. I will share the
interesting bits with Cisco.
Jim
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
Not big endian and LTO together that I know of, we have got quite a
few bare-metal big-endian tests running on models though.
Peter
On 24 May 2016 at 18:43, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 24 May 2016 at 18:13, Peter Smith wrote:
>> I think that the bit missing from Gold is the endian reversal code fo
On 24 May 2016 at 18:13, Peter Smith wrote:
> I think that the bit missing from Gold is the endian reversal code for
> instructions, in ARMv7 BE8. If that is implemented then no additional
> support is needed for LTO. I would suspect that it would be much
> quicker to implement BE8 support in gold
Hello,
BE8 support in ARMv7 is independent of LTO. In essence the bit-code
file will be code-generated into a big-endian object file. To a linker
this is no different to an big-endian ELF object file from the command
line or a static library.
I think that the bit missing from Gold is the endian r
On 24 May 2016 at 17:05, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Cisco is trying to use clang/lto on big-endian arm, which apparently
> requires gold, and gold does not support the --be8 option which is
> required for ARMv7 big-endian support. Does anyone here care about
> this?
Hi Jim,
Using Clang with LTO on ARM
Cisco is trying to use clang/lto on big-endian arm, which apparently
requires gold, and gold does not support the --be8 option which is
required for ARMv7 big-endian support. Does anyone here care about
this?
Umesh Kalappa asked about this on the binutils mailing list
https://sourceware.org/m
