Lee Noar wrote on 06 March 2017 14:10: > On 06/03/17 13:00, alan buckley wrote: > > I’m looking at creating Raspberry Pi and VFP specific builds and package > > lists and have something working, but would just like to see if anyone > > has any objections before I check it in.
> That all sounds reasonable to me. > As far as shared libraries are concerned, there's not much point in > building a VFP version if the library contains no FP; the dynamic > linker will not fault a missing VFP version, but will instead look > for a normal version. If it’s not needed I agree there is no point in adding a VFP version to the package. Is there an easy way to tell if a shared library contains no FP? > However, static builds are more problematic as the static linker > doesn't allow the mixing of VFP/non-VFP object files. So will this > force us to build VFP versions of all libraries regardless of FP > content? Yes, I can’t see anyway around this unless we decide all autobuilder application will use shared libraries and don’t bother with static libraries. But that will probably upset too many people - or am I mistaken here? My thoughts were to just build VFP libraries as they are needed for now. i.e. if I build a VFP static application and that needs several static libraries, I’d upload new versions of the libraries with the static VFP versions as well. Also as with all of this, if someone asks for a VFP build of a particular library then that would be done. Regards, Alan
_______________________________________________ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
