On 4/27/06, Pjotr Kourzanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FPU is a CPU-related thing, so it should be part of $cpu I think. But software fpu emulation is a kernel feature, so arguable. Alghough I must agree at this point.
> For ARM OABI this means having separate $cpu architectures > for: arm (hard-float), arm-softfloat (soft-float), arm-vfp (softfp), > arm-iwmmxt and whatnot. Now let's see how many architectures are there for arm cpus. :) A better solution won't involve separate architectures for each case, I hope. > Isn't ARM EABI a solution to this? The discussion on a proper name > for "arm-eabi" (which is my preference) is still ongoing, but it seems > that most likely armel/armeb will be chosen (where "e" is for EABI > and "l"/"b" is for little/big endian). I'd rather arm eabi become mainstream 'arm' and old abi forgotten and buried. But then, soft/hard fpu problem affects many architectures out there, not only arms. > I didn't forget about kfreebsd-i386-uclibc which in your case would > be kfreebsd-uclibc-i386. . o O ( darwin-uclibc-sparc ) -- I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally.
