On Thursday 05 April 2012 05:06:43 Riku Voipio wrote: > On 5 April 2012 04:18, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote: > >> The choice of using multiarch path for armhf linker path was agreed > >> mostly because 1) people agreed that having the possibility of armhf > >> and armel binaries on the same systems is useful and 2) nobody > >> proposed anything else. > > > > i don't see value in having multiple endians being active simultaneously. > > it might make for a fun exercise, but people won't deploy systems with > > them both installed. after all, the kernel isn't bi-endian on the fly. > > Sorry for being ambigous. With "armel" I mean arm eabi with softfloat > abi. What people agreed was useful was supporting those binaries along > with eabi hardfloat binaries "armhf".
sure, we all agree on that :) -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
