On Tue, November 15, 2011 21:13, Florian Klämpfl wrote: > Am 15.11.2011 21:12, schrieb Jonas Maebe: >> On 15 Nov 2011, at 21:06, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >> >>> I dn't know if this is a good long term solution: I fear too much >>> duplication with having a seperate android target. I'd prefer an >>> FPC_ANDROID define, I don't think that it will pollute the rtl and >>> considering that there are a lot of arm "sub architectures" out >>> there having an own target for each of them isn't a good idea >>> either. Maybe we can even introduce some SUBARCH in the long term >>> into our build system. >> >> Android isn't a different architecture (if you consider native >> applications), but a different OS. It uses a Linux kernel (although >> even that one is heavily patched, afaik), and user land is obviously >> quite different (including the C library and the dynamic linker). > > But gcc considers it as arm-linux-eabi as well, no?
Would anyone possibly consider creating releases for Android in the future (even if just for cross-compilation purposes)? If this is the case, I'd say that having a distinct target might make sense... Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
