On 11/01/2014 13:32, Florian Klämpfl wrote: > Am 11.01.2014 11:14, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: >> On 11/01/2014 08:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>> Am 10.01.2014 13:27, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: >> As I couldn't find any existing docs, I've started this page: >> http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/ARM_compiler_options
First off, thanks again for responding - I do really appreciate solid info from people who really know what's going on ;) > Hmm, is this really needed? I actually would expect something like that in fpc docs, yes. >It clutters only information. I would > completly remove the page and collect only the needed parameters for > particular targets at their page because every arm target is different. Well, that depends on your point of view - I think it nicely bundles information in one spot. Also, there may not be pages for all options (ARMv7 for example). People compiling e.g. for Raspberry Pi may not care what all the options do but they would if they changed from e.g. the original softfloat raspberry debian to raspbian which has hardfloat. Having this kind of page IMO helps clarify nicely what the options are. >> Please feel free, as usual, to modify with corrections/additions. > > I see so need for the abi documention. Specifing the abi is normally not > needed. It confuses only. Well, I wouldn't know. I'm just collecting snippets from all over the wiki, forum posts, mailing lists and trying to make sense out of them (like the EABIHF versus -dFPC_ARMHF thing). Sort of trying to demistify a cargo cult.... Of course, I'll be happy to add a note saying that specifying the ABI normally is not needed - that'll save some other poor soul from wondering whether it's him, the phase of the moon or the wrong ABI parameter that caused the compiler to catch fire ;) So when /is/ specifying the ABI needed? When supporting a microcontroller? _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
