On 03.02.2012, at 00:22, Jo Shields wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 00:15 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 03.02.2012, at 00:11, Hector Oron wrote: >> >>> Hello Jo, >>> >>> I am forwarding the message to a couple mailing lists which might have >>> people interested on the Mono porting for ARM hard-float ABI. >>> >>> 2012/2/2 Jo Shields <direct...@apebox.org>: >>>> Right now, Mono is available in Debian armhf. This is a hack - what >>>> we're actually doing is building Mono as an armhf binary, but built to >>>> emit soft VFP instructions and using calling conventions and ABI for >>>> armel. This hack works well enough for pure cross-platform code (like >>>> the C# compiler) to run, but dies in a heap for anything complex. >>>> >>>> This situation is a bit on the crappy side of crap. >>>> >>>> In order for Mono on armhf not to be a waste of time, a "true" port >>>> needs to be completed. If I were to make a not-remotely-educated guess, >>>> I'd say it needs about 550 lines of changes, primarily the addition of >>>> code to emit the correct instructions feeling the correct registers in >>>> mono/mini/mini-arm.c plus a couple of tweaks to related headers. >>>> >>>> Upstream have also indicated that they're happy to provide guidance and >>>> pointers on how to implement this port, although they're unable to >>>> provide the requisite code themselves. >>>> >>>> Sadly, unless someone in the community is able to step forward and >>>> contribute here, it's only a matter of time before the armhf packages >>>> are rightfully marked RC-buggy, and 100+ packages need to be axed from >>>> armhf. This would make me sad. >> >> Please check our mono arm patches in OBS: >> >> >> https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=mono-core&project=openSUSE%3AFactory%3AARM >> >> While slightly hacky, they enable full armhf support for arm. At least for >> us it's worked pretty well. Mono is a rather core dependency of a lot of >> stuff. > > Are these really giving you everything you need for openSUSE w/ > hardfloat? They don't really seem very different from what we're doing > in Debian, i.e. using the existing VFP softfloat code
Yes. At least the native library bindings seem to work :). But I haven't stress tested it. Do you have an example of where it breaks for you? Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7e94791d-31d0-43db-85db-b4ee1fdfa...@suse.de
