Dixi quod… >② Although I wonder why we build the multilib stuff at all, you > told me to not disable it, but I can’t find the 68040/68060 > optimised target libraries in the .deb packages… so they just > take up compile time at the moment.
Actually, why don’t we install the 68040 and 68060 optimised versions and use hwcaps¹ so the programmes can decide at run time whether to use them? Assuming m68k and coldfile have “the same ABI”² at least for binaries, we could even go one step further: install optimised versions for 68020, 68040, 68060, coldfire into hwcaps direc- tories and either (if possible) a common (working on both) version in the normal lib directory or (this would require all libraries to be compiled twice though) no common version for libraries at all, just for executables. (The coldfire part might be aided by multiarch (on the OS level, like it’s being introduced currently) if we were to make a fake Debian/coldfire port that required the normal m68k port as baseline, like it’s being done with – don’t remember – s390x or ppc64. Or multiarch could do all of the coldfire half, but that doesn’t invalidate the hwcaps idea, does it?) ① Almost³ undocumented, but the thread at ↓ makes for a start: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00856.html ② quoted from https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort#ld.so_hwcaps ③ duckduckgoing for both hwcaps and hwcap shows some results, though bye, //mirabilos -- Support mksh as /bin/sh and RoQA dash NOW! ‣ src:bash (256 (275) bugs: 0 RC, 177 (192) I&N, 79 (83) M&W, 0 F&P) ‣ src:dash (81 (89) bugs: 3 RC, 43 (46) I&N, 35 (40) M&W, 0 F&P) ‣ src:mksh (2 bugs: 0 RC, 0 I&N, 2 M&W, 0 F&P) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
