From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [ECOS] How to run eCos in SMDK41100 board Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:19:00 -0000 Message-id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010130231450.00b0a430@larwe.com> References: <001a01c08b2f$56472200$c408aa0a@inc.inventec> <3A7780B3.598D1676@redhat.com> <000501c08b38$345fd8e0$c408aa0a@inc.inventec> <4.3.2.7.2.20010130225032.00a96900@larwe.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010130230539.00b14720@larwe.com> <3A779130.ECE8B168@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00491.html > > > > Build the regular arm-elf version. > > > > > >If you are referring to the change in gcc that meant that you could no > > >longer configure gcc for "thumb-elf", and instead using regular arm-elf > > >tools with -mthumb, then that was fixed quite a while ago. > > > >I meant that the instructions were updated to reflect the change in gcc. Ummm.. which change is this? From extensive talking with people who understand a lot more about gcc/binutils than I do, it seems that thumb just no worky. The specific thumb target is broken (or rather, removed) and the codegen option is broken or missing. > > (with -mthumb to gas) but gcc will not take advantage of this. So you can > > only take advantage of thumb if you are writing in assembler, meaning that > > thumb support is basically broken at this time. > >My understanding is that compiling with "arm-elf-gcc -mthumb" should work. >Does it not? Nope. cc1.exe says it's an invalid option. (gcc 2.95.2) === Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (Embedded Engineer) Work: http://www.digi-frame.com/ Personal: http://www.zws.com/ and http://www.larwe.com/ "Und setzet ihr nicht das Leben ein, Nie wird euch das Leben gewonnen sein."