On 10/25/2010 2:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
________________________________________
From: Arjan van de Ven [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:59 PM
On 10/25/2010 4:06 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
We have discussed about hardfp (and other) support in the toolchain team.
Current assumption is that hardfp will be used in MeeGo 1.2. But there are
still quite many other things to be agreed also - regarding different compiler
options and switches, etc. Those different options are currently investigated
and
target is to get default settings for them, i.e. what options are used and how.
breaking ABI like this goes way beyond the toolchain team.
Really.
I would expect the TSG to have a lively debate about such ABI breaks and
make the final decision... this is not something that is done lightly, since
all ISVs are completely impacted by this.
Arjan, give me a break, will you.
I would like to see Intel opposing that we are proposing to break ABI on ARM
side ..
You will likely have good laughs instead.
this is not "Intel opposing"
this is me, one of the MeeGo architects, opposing breaking the MeeGo API
this lightly.
MeeGo's value proposition is about giving a consistent platform to ISVs;
and this proposal completely destroys that
in image, if not reality.
In part this is about reputation and part is about reality; if MeeGo
ends up breaking the ABIs all the time, or perceived as breaking ABIs
this lightly,
why bother with MeeGo at all ????
so yes give me a break.
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
