On 7/9/10, Hector Oron wrote:
> > I prefer 'armhf', FWIW.
> Somebody against 'armhf'? Have we got it?
>
> And for the triplet, is it OK to use vendor tag as explained in the
> wiki page[1]?
> arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi
> or
> armhf-linux-gnueabi
What are the effects of the name choice?
> > I would be a bit scared that this has a chance of getting out of date,
> > or be confusing because other ports might be v7 as well, or also
> > because this only reflects a subset of the ports' requirement (VFP
> > level for instance isn't reflected, such as vfpv2, vfpv3).
>
> ARMv7 (w
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:58:58PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:55:25PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > > Could the targeted CPU be used in the name? Ie, armelv
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010, Hector Oron wrote:
> Somebody against 'armhf'? Have we got it?
> arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi
Sounds good
> armhf-linux-gnueabi
Oh no, not the CPU field; it really can only go in vendor
--
Loïc Minier
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org
Hello again,
2010/7/9, Clint Adams :
> I prefer 'armhf', FWIW.
Somebody against 'armhf'? Have we got it?
And for the triplet, is it OK to use vendor tag as explained in the
wiki page[1]?
arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi
or
armhf-linux-gnueabi
Please, remember, that this effort is not official t
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:58:58PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:55:25PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Could the targeted CPU be used in the name? Ie, armelv7.
> Or even just armv7. It is just a name, so it should be short and
>
On 2010-07-06 21:55, Loïc Minier wrote:
[...]
I would be a bit scared that this has a chance of getting out of date,
or be confusing because other ports might be v7 as well, or also
because this only reflects a subset of the ports' requirement (VFP
level for instance isn't reflected, such
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:27:23PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> Have we got a Debian architecture name yet? 'armelhf' is most reasonable one?
I prefer 'armhf', FWIW.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists
Hello,
2010/7/9, Loïc Minier :
> Please, let's not use the last field; there is not only the default
> target of the toolchain, there is also the toolchain itself. An
> arm-linux-gnueabi toolchain can target both soft and hard float calling
> conventions, so a single triplet. It would be per
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010, Wookey wrote:
> The first thing I've found is that whilst we can build for
> --mfloat-abi=hard there is no macro set by GCC to detect this state.
For the record:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/602745
> manufacturer/vendor doesn't really supply useful informatio
+++ Konstantinos Margaritis [2010-07-08 15:38 +0300]:
> Even now, libc arch specific optimizations -like libc6-i686
> that you mentioned- are undocumented, very few packages actually provide
> support for them, and in short, software ends up totally unoptimized for no
> good reason.
That's too
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The
> lpia is a great example of an architecture variant that was a mistake,
> and should haver never been created.
This is a bit oversimplified; when lpia was created, there were
pro
+++ Hector Oron [2010-07-09 01:54 +0200]:
> Hello,
>
> 2010/7/8, Wookey :
> ..
> > armarm-linux-gnu
> ..
> > I guess that's (more than) enough for now. Thoughts welcome.
>
> Would be sane to use old deprecated OABI name?
> armarm-linux-gnu
One day, that might be nice, bu
* kalyan karnati [2010-07-08 13:52]:
> Can some one please help me in finding the Debian Kernel source for
> Kirkwood openRD ?
> I want to compile some modules that are specific to my requirement.
See ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6
http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRebuildAnOfficia
14 matches
Mail list logo
