PATCH: Support "-march=armv6j", not "-march=armv6"
Richard Earnshaw
rearnsha@arm.com
Fri Dec 19 11:47:00 GMT 2003
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Fri Dec 19 11:47:00 GMT 2003
- Previous message (by thread): PATCH: Support "-march=armv6j", not "-march=armv6"
- Next message (by thread): PATCH: Support "-march=armv6j", not "-march=armv6"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > This patch makes GAS match GCC with respect to the V6 "-march=" > option. GCC spells it "-march=armv6j", so now so does GAS. > > It's my understand that all V6 cores have the Jazelle extensions. > Still, It's possible that we should add "-march=armv6" as a synonym to > both GCC and GAS. Richard, do you have thoughts about that? No, this isn't quite accurate. All cores will have the ARM-state extensions required to support Jazelle (the bxj instruction). But not all cores are required to support Jazelle itself (direct interpretation of the java byte-codes). Indeed, ARM has already announced arm11 cores that do not contain Jazelle. So there really is a distinction between a v6 and a v6j implementation -- it just so happens that the distinctions are irrelevant in the assembler (and the compiler). I think the above is sufficient justification, however, for us to support both v6 and v6j options in the tools. R.
- Previous message (by thread): PATCH: Support "-march=armv6j", not "-march=armv6"
- Next message (by thread): PATCH: Support "-march=armv6j", not "-march=armv6"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list