On 11 Mar 2012, at 15:14, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > Am 11.03.2012 13:22, schrieb Jonas Maebe: >> * I'm don't think that requiring yet another different ARM compiler >> binary for this is the proper way. There's already enough confusion >> as it is with ppcarm variants. > > But isn't this caused by the fact that we have the same executable name > while it generates different code?
Yes. > I currently think that having even > arm/armeb/armel/armhf as cpu types is the way to go. This allows also to > have units for all four flavours on one system. Currently we simply > don't support the same target cpu but different abi in any way in the > build system. We also don't support an RTL compiled with -Cp386, -Cppentium, -Cppentium2, -Cppentium2, -Cppentiumm, -Cfx86, -Cfsse2 and/or -Cfsse3 on the same system. For ARM hard float, you will also need different sets of units depending on the exact kind of VFP cpu you have (unless you always target the lowest common denominator -- if something like that even exists for all VFP variants, since ARM is not that big on backward compatibility and they have their own standard of encoding the entire ABI, target cpu and all other details into attributes inside every generated object file so that the linker can verify the compatibility). Whether it's ABI or minimally required target cpu, the part that causes the trouble is that you need a different set of units. I don't think that renaming the compiler binary just for this particular case is the right approach. Jonas_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
