On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:57:40PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 06:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > > > > However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. > > > > As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due > > to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure that bumping > > CPU > > requirements is a good idea in general. If there are actual benefits > > to v5 as the default then bumping it could be a good idea. > > IIRC some important part of the toolchain (gcc?) has bumped their > baseline to v5 quite a while back, so we are already living on borrowed > time wrt toolchain support. (This was from an ARM BoF several debconf's > ago, I can't seem to find a reference right now though). >...
In 2016 gcc 6 has deprecated (not yet removed) ARM prior to ARMv4t,[1] which matches the armel baseline. In 2017 gcc 7 has deprecated the non-Thumb ARMv5 variants "which have no known implementations".[2] What matters for buster is gcc 8, and there is no current deprecation in gcc that would affect the armel port. armel is a port on borrowed time since it supports old hardware no longer supported elsewhere, but I am not aware of any serious current problems in the toolchain. > Ian. cu Adrian [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/changes.html [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed