On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:20:00 +0200, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote: > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > >> [quoted text muted] > I think we can restrict ourselves to most useful, popular > ones (i.e., the ones that can/will be actively maintained): > > arm -> arm4, le, glibc, oabi-hard-float > arm-softfloat -> arm4, le, glibc, oabi-soft-float > strongarm -> arm4, le, glibc, oabi-hard-float, -mcpu=strongarm1100 > ... other strongarm variations > xscale -> arm5, le, glibc, oabi-hard-float, -mcpu=xscale > ... other scale variations > arm-uclibc -> arm4, le, uclibc, oabi-hard-float > ... other variations based on uclibc > armeb -> arm4, be, glibc, oabi-hard-float > armeb-softfloat -> arm4, be, glibc, oabi-soft-float > ... other bigendian variations
New archs for different -mcpu values is severe overkill. > This all to be replaced later by: > > arm-eabi -> arm4, le, glibc, eabi-soft-float > arm-uclibc-eabi -> arm4, le, uclibc, eabi-soft-float > strongarm-eabi -> arm4, le, glibc, eabi-soft-float, -mcpu=strongarm1100 > ... other strongarm variations > xscale-eabi -> arm5, le, glibc, eabi-soft-float, -mcpu=xscale > ... other xscale variations > >> [quoted text muted] > Pjotr Didn't Catalin say that EABI on arm4 was not possible? That eliminates three of the above variations already. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
