On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 09:00:01PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 03:55:24PM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> > That's true for the actual kernel image, but not for the bootstrap code we
> > use
> > when compiling compressed kernels. arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefil
On 08/07/2009 01:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 03:55:24PM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
>> That's true for the actual kernel image, but not for the bootstrap code we
>> use
>> when compiling compressed kernels. arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile uses
>> libgcc, unl
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 03:55:24PM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> That's true for the actual kernel image, but not for the bootstrap code we use
> when compiling compressed kernels. arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile uses
> libgcc, unless I'm overlooking something here:
>
> arm-unknown-linux-ucli
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 03:27:00PM +0200, Matthieu CASTET wrote :
> Albin Tonnerre a écrit :
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:50:03PM +0200, Matthieu CASTET wrote :
> >> Albin Tonnerre a écrit :
> >>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:36:56AM +0200, Alain Knaff wrote :
> On 08/07/09 11:24, Albin Tonner
Albin Tonnerre a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:50:03PM +0200, Matthieu CASTET wrote :
>> Albin Tonnerre a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:36:56AM +0200, Alain Knaff wrote :
On 08/07/09 11:24, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
>
> Regards,
>
Could it be that the patches that remove
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:50:03PM +0200, Matthieu CASTET wrote :
> Albin Tonnerre a écrit :
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:36:56AM +0200, Alain Knaff wrote :
> >> On 08/07/09 11:24, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> >>> Regards,
> >> Could it be that the patches that remove division (zutil.h and inflate.c
Albin Tonnerre a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:36:56AM +0200, Alain Knaff wrote :
>> On 08/07/09 11:24, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
>
>>> Regards,
>
>> Could it be that the patches that remove division (zutil.h and inflate.c)
>> have somehow not been applied?
>
> Indeed, they've not been applie
On 08/07/09 12:21, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> Indeed, they've not been applied. However, I'd rather try to understand why
> exactly this is an issue when compiling with -Os and not -O2 instead of
> working
> around it by removing the divisions.
>
> Regards,
Well, I for myself couldn't get it to co
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:36:56AM +0200, Alain Knaff wrote :
> On 08/07/09 11:24, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 11:40:55PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote :
> >> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:58:19PM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> >>> This is the second part of patch. This p
On 08/07/09 11:24, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 11:40:55PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote :
>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:58:19PM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
>>> This is the second part of patch. This part includes:
>>> - changes to ach/arch/boot/Makefile to make it easi
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:24:52AM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> I also happen to have issues related to the linker not finding
> __aeabi_uidivmod,
> but only when compiling with CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE. Is it similar for
> you,
> or does it also fail when compiling with -O2 ?
I tend not to
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 11:40:55PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote :
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:58:19PM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> > This is the second part of patch. This part includes:
> > - changes to ach/arch/boot/Makefile to make it easier to add new
> >compression types
> >
12 matches
Mail list logo
