Subject: Re: Possible bug in arm32 strongarm optimisations.
To: David Brownlee <abs@netbsd.org>
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 11/02/2000 09:48:08
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 
> > > > The solution is to use -mcpu=arm7m -mtune=strongarm.
> > > >
> > >
> > > 	Just to confirm - that is more appropriate than mcpu=armv4?
> > >
> >
> > Yes; -mcpu=armv4 will produce code that can run incorrectly on Acorn
> > machines since the bus cannot handle half-word operations.  (This includes
> > machines fitted with Kinetic cards -- since even these need to access the
> > system bus at times).
> 
> 	Sorry - typo, I meant to ask if that is more appropriate than
> 	armv3m.
> 

Ah!  Makes more sense now (and I also note I made a small mistake in my 
reply, since -mcpu doesn't accept an architecture name).  It's better to 
use the name of the CPU architecture with the -march flag than the -mcpu 
flag.  Think of

   -mcpu=foo

as being short-hand for 

   -march=archof<foo> -mtune=foo

So what you have above is, in effect, two -mtune options.

So in this case you want 

   -march=armv3m -mtune=strongarm

Hope this is all clearer now,

Richard.