On 03/08/07, Brian Brunswick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > armel seems like the best bet for performance indeed. I didn't know it was > so far along. >
But of course, armel doesn't work either with the current kernel, since armel seems to change the syscall interface to always use SWI 0, and pass the syscall in a register for extra speed. (Slight change in 64 bit argument passing convention too I read) So we would need a kernel compiled with that option too. Please include one or the other of these options, since the ability to chroot and use pre-compiled software is pretty handy. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
