On 2 April 2015 at 17:18, Michal Marek <mma...@suse.cz> wrote:
> On 2015-04-02 15:14, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> On 2 April 2015 at 15:01, Arnaud Patard <arnaud.pat...@rtp-net.org> wrote:
>>> riku.voi...@linaro.org writes:
>>>> --- a/scripts/package/builddeb
>>>> +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb
>>>> @@ -45,7 +45,16 @@ create_package() {
>>>> arm64)
>>>> debarch=arm64 ;;
>>>> arm*)
>>>> - debarch=arm$(grep -q CONFIG_AEABI=y $KCONFIG_CONFIG && echo
>>>> el || true) ;;
>>>> + if grep -q CONFIG_AEABI=y $KCONFIG_CONFIG; then
>>>> + if $CC -dM -E - < /dev/null|grep -q __ARM_PCS_VFP;
>>>> then
>>>
>>> Actually, I guess there's nothing preventing you building a armhf kernel
>>> with a compiler not having __ARM_PCS_VFP defined by default, but I'm not
>>> sure
>>> we should take care of this case. One can always use KBUILD_DEBARCH=armhf.
>>
>> I think the common use cases would be a) native compilers or b)
>> cross-compiler targeting the same debian architecture as the rootfs.
>> This patch provides automatic detection for both cases.
> $CC should be used together with $KBUILD_CFLAGS to behave the same as
> when building the kernel.
I just tested and it won't work. $KBUILD_CFLAGS has -msoft-float so
__ARM_PCS_VFP wont be set. Which makes sense - we wouldn't want kernel
to pass anything in float registers. Given the constraint, would you
prefer Ben's original patch that checks CONFIG_VFP[1], or my version
using CC without KBUILD_CFLAGS?
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2014/06/msg00016.html
Riku
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/caaqcghnrvdu+7nhd37tk98bwjefy1+mstsm6bryza11akv7...@mail.gmail.com
