From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6729 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2012 11:16:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 6719 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2012 11:16:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,TW_HW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:16:30 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SzQj7-0000gS-TK from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 04:16:29 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 04:16:29 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:16:28 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SzQj5-0003nA-6q; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:16:27 +0000 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:16:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Roland McGrath CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH roland/arm-hwcap-vfp] don't use HWCAP_ARM_* in OS-independent code In-Reply-To: <20120808235921.AA4292C075@topped-with-meat.com> Message-ID: References: <20120808235921.AA4292C075@topped-with-meat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Roland McGrath wrote: > This change is not quite just a a no-op abstraction of the existing > logic. I also made the generic sysdeps/arm/ code define ARM_HAVE_VFP to > a constant when __VFP_FP__ is predefined. My rationale is that if the > compiler building libc is allowed to generate VFP instructions, then > we're already implicitly presuming the hardware exists at runtime and so > we might as well skip the explicit runtime checks in libc too. __VFP_FP__ doesn't mean "generating VFP instructions", it means "floating-point types have VFP layout" (i.e. normal IEEE floating-point with the same byte ordering / endianness as integer types, as opposed to FPA format), which is always true for EABI. The relevant test for "generating VFP instructions" is defined __VFP_FP__ && !defined __SOFTFP__ (which can be simplified to just !defined __SOFTFP__ given that EABI is assumed). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com