On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Konstantinos Margaritis <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 April 2011 01:39, Jeremiah C. Foster <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hello! > > Hi, > > 3. For packages that fail on armhf but succeed on armel, it's highly likely > that > this is due to some thumb2 bug. Ubuntu is great help there, many packages > have already been fixed on ubuntu-armel for thumb2 problems and most of > the time it's just a case of backporting the thumb2 patches (as was the case > with libmad and others), and now I'm working on backporting fixes for > coq, blcr, openmsx. Dave Martin from ARM has done a great job in finding and > fixing those.
Isn't there a quick fix here by building them with -marm instead of -mthumb? While being *totally* thumb2 is a noble goal (and a required one IMO), at the moment none of the supported processors are thumb2-only. Yes, running Debian on a Cortex-M4 would be wicked awesome, but not today, is basically my view on it If it gets the rest of the system building with maybe a small percentage -marm'd up (I am sure a few Ubuntu packages still do this) that is a more noble goal than blocking. All we need is a way of marking the package as -marm'd and still needs -mthumb'ing. -- Matt Sealey <[email protected]> Product Development Analyst, Genesi USA, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
