On Monday 28 July 2003 22:53, Takahashi, Chris wrote: > I tried using libfp.a by using the -lfp option when linking and I even > added -Wl,-L<prefix>/msp430/lib/msp1 to make sure it finds libfp.c. I'm > sure it's finding libfp.c because it doesn't complain about the -lfp but if > I misspell it (eg -lffp) it complains. you do not have to do anything about it. libfp.a situated in the same dir as all others libraries and being linked upon device architecture. So, -lfp will be far enough.
> > My problem is that I get the same binary out with the -lfp option as with > out it. I have even tried -nodefaultlibs along with my other two options > and it complains that it cannot find __mulsf3 and some other FP functions. libfp contains only basic FP operations - "+,-,/,*", modulos, abs, and comparisons. There are no much attention to infs, nans, and +- zeros. So, this is a bit smaller. For example, mulsf (no HW) takes 247 words. It consumes much less stack space, etc. I think, that IARs ?F_MUL_L04 contains lots of calls to other routines or something. Therefore takes less space. If not, post assembly here, I'll check what can I do about it :) ~d > > Upon disassembly of libfp.a I see all the function that the linker is > claiming not to find so I know they are there. > > I read a post in the mailing list archive that implied that all you needed > was a -lfp. Am I still missing something? > > -Chris Takahashi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dmitry [mailto:di...@mail.ru] > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:54 AM > To: mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Mspgcc-users] Floating point Alternatives? > > > check libfp which is available in msp430-libc > ~d > > On Thursday 24 July 2003 20:44, Takahashi, Chris wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I was wondering if there are any alternatives to the current FP functions > > in Libc? Looking at the code size for floating point functions in libc > > versus the functions in IAR (1.26A) I get a considerable difference with > > gcc coming out almost 3 times larger with the libs that are imported. > > One example is _fpmul_parts is 542 bytes (gcc) while ?F_MUL_L04 is 120 > > bytes (IAR). It is my understanding that this is because GCC implements > > FP math with strict attention to IEEE spec. This is good for some > > applications > > and > > > Bad for others. In our application ROM space is of utmost importance and > > as long as the math comes out to within a certain percent error it is > > fine. > > > Is there an alternative which would allow us to use smaller but possibly > > non IEEE strict FP code? > > > > Thanks for all the help! > > > > > > -Chris Takahashi > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mspgcc-users mailing list > > Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users -- /***************************************************************** ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ (\ Dimmy the Wild UA1ACZ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) State Polytechnical Univ. (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' Radio-Physics Departament _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Saint Petersburg, Russia (il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' +7 (812) 5403923, 5585314 *****************************************************************/
