Re: [PATCH] scripts: add softfp support

[Michael Hope <michael dot hope at linaro dot org>]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Yann E. MORIN
<yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr> wrote:
> Michael, All,
>
> On Wednesday 19 October 2011 04:29:20 Michael Hope wrote:
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Michael Hope <michael.hope@linaro.org>
>> # Date 1318991252 -46800
>> # Node ID a31d097e28cd73d07a5484129929a500b4d58efa
>> # Parent ?a32156bd31c0d395e8d346431b123a7d2caa14cd
>> scripts: add softfp support
>>
>> ARM compilers can be built for soft float (software only, floats in
>> core registers), hard float (uses floating point instructions, floats
>> in FPU registers), or the half-way house softfp (uses floating point
>> instructions, floats in core registers).
>
> Feature definitely a nice addition, but too close to the release to
> add it now (which reminds me I should document the release plan on
> the website...). FYI, it's a release every three months, with about
> a 15-day slack before, used to stabilise the stuff. Next release is
> due by October the 31st, so we just entered the 15-day delay...
>
> I was thinking about cutting the release branch ahead of time, but
> handling both the relase and the devel at the same time is a bit
> complicated in my head, and does colide a bit on the schedule...
> I'd like to try, but this release is special: it also colides with
> the Prague events. Probably I'll do it for the next release (Feb`12)...

All good.  I'll keep it local for now.

>> Add support for softfp cross compilers to the GCC and GLIBC
>> configuration. ?Needed for Ubuntu and other distros that are softfp.
>
> What about uClibc? How will it cope with softfp?

I'm not sure.  I've had a poke about in buildroot and it has support
for soft float and hard float but no softfp.  It seems to tie the FPU
into the calling convention like crosstool-NG currently does so hard
float == has VFP.

I can play with this more next week.

>> Signed-off-by: Michael Hope <michael.hope@linaro.org>
>>
>> diff -r a32156bd31c0 -r a31d097e28cd config/target.in
>> --- a/config/target.in ? ? ? ?Sun Oct 16 17:51:42 2011 +0200
>> +++ b/config/target.in ? ? ? ?Wed Oct 19 15:27:32 2011 +1300
>> @@ -271,6 +271,22 @@
>> ? ? ? ?If your processor has no FPU, then you most probably want this, as it
>> ? ? ? ?is faster than emulating the FPU in the kernel.
>>
>> +config ARCH_FLOAT_SOFTFP
>
> I'm a bit reluctant at adding an architecture-specific option to this
> generic file. Currently, all arch options are in the related arch file.
>
> However, I agreee that there is no easy way to nicely handle that with
> the current infrastructure... :-/
>
> *But* I recall a similar approach a few months back... It seemed that ARM
> is not the only architecture that support softfp. Seems PPC also uses it.
> So:
>
>> + ? ?bool
>> + ? ?prompt "softfp"
>> + ? ?depends on ARCH_arm
>
> ?- this arch-specific "depends on" should go away
> ?- and either we keep the option un-protected, or we hide it behind
> ? ARCH_SUPPORT_SOFTFP (or the like) which is set by archs that
> ? support it.

OK.

>> + ? ?help
>> + ? ? ?Emit hardware floating point opcodes but use the software
>> + ? ? ?floating point calling convention.
>> +
>> + ? ? ?Architectures such as ARM use different registers for passing
>> + ? ? ?floating point values depending on if they're in software mode
>> + ? ? ?or hardware mode. ?softfp emits FPU instructions but uses the
>> + ? ? ?software FP calling convention allowing softfp code to
>> + ? ? ?interoperate with legacy software only code.
>> +
>> + ? ? ?If in doubt, use 'software' or 'hardware' mode instead.
>> +
>> ?endchoice
>>
>> ?config TARGET_CFLAGS
>> diff -r a32156bd31c0 -r a31d097e28cd scripts/build/libc/glibc-eglibc.sh-common
>> --- a/scripts/build/libc/glibc-eglibc.sh-common ? ? ? Sun Oct 16 17:51:42 2011 +0200
>> +++ b/scripts/build/libc/glibc-eglibc.sh-common ? ? ? Wed Oct 19 15:27:32 2011 +1300
>> @@ -132,9 +132,10 @@
>> ? ? ? ? ?*) extra_config+=("--disable-shared");;
>> ? ? ?esac
>>
>> - ? ?case "${CT_ARCH_FLOAT_HW},${CT_ARCH_FLOAT_SW}" in
>> - ? ? ? ?y,) extra_config+=("--with-fp");;
>> - ? ? ? ?,y) extra_config+=("--without-fp");;
>> + ? ?case "${CT_ARCH_FLOAT_HW},${CT_ARCH_FLOAT_SW},${CT_ARCH_FLOAT_SOFTFP}" in
>> + ? ? ? ?y,,) extra_config+=("--with-fp");;
>> + ? ? ? ?,y,) extra_config+=("--without-fp");;
>> + ? ? ? ?,,y) extra_config+=("--with-fp");;
>> ? ? ?esac
>
> Argh!... This is starting to be unreadable... :-/
>
> config ARCH_FLOAT
> ? ?string
> ? ?default "hard" ? if ARCH_FLOAT_HW
> ? ?default "soft" ? if ARCH_FLOAT_SW
> ? ?default "softfp" if ARCH_FLOAT_SOFTFP
>
> Then:
> ? ?case "${CT_ARCH_FLOAT}" in
> ? ? ? ?hard) ? ...;;
> ? ? ? ?soft) ? ...;;
> ? ? ? ?softfp) ...;;
> ? ?esac
>
> I'll do it.

OK.

>> ? ? ?if [ "${CT_LIBC_DISABLE_VERSIONING}" = "y" ]; then
>> diff -r a32156bd31c0 -r a31d097e28cd scripts/functions
>> --- a/scripts/functions ? ? ? Sun Oct 16 17:51:42 2011 +0200
>> +++ b/scripts/functions ? ? ? Wed Oct 19 15:27:32 2011 +1300
>> @@ -984,6 +984,7 @@
>> ? ? ?[ "${CT_ARCH_TUNE}" ? ? ] && { CT_ARCH_TUNE_CFLAG="-mtune=${CT_ARCH_TUNE}"; ?CT_ARCH_WITH_TUNE="--with-tune=${CT_ARCH_TUNE}"; }
>> ? ? ?[ "${CT_ARCH_FPU}" ? ? ?] && { CT_ARCH_FPU_CFLAG="-mfpu=${CT_ARCH_FPU}"; ? ? CT_ARCH_WITH_FPU="--with-fpu=${CT_ARCH_FPU}"; ? ?}
>> ? ? ?[ "${CT_ARCH_FLOAT_SW}" ] && { CT_ARCH_FLOAT_CFLAG="-msoft-float"; ? ? ? ? ? CT_ARCH_WITH_FLOAT="--with-float=soft"; ? ? ? ? ?}
>> + ? ?[ "${CT_ARCH_FLOAT_SOFTFP}" ] && { CT_ARCH_FLOAT_CFLAG="-mfloat-abi=softfp"; CT_ARCH_WITH_FLOAT="--with-float=softfp"; ? ? ? ?}
>
> And the last time this came up, it was pointed that CT_ARCH_FLOAT_HW did
> force neither -hard-float not --with-float=hard
>
> I'll look at it...

OK.

> Can we sit on this for now, and revisit after the release?

Sure.  I'll keep it locally.

-- Michael

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq