Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: >> >>> I don't think we need a 'system' for every combination of flags. We >>> should just find a small number of "sweet spots" in the tradeoff between >>> minimum requirements vs performance. IMO, for 32-bit ARM, two systems >>> should be enough: armhf, and maybe another one (armel?) that works on >>> lower-end processors. >> >> It’s not even clear that “hf” needs to be part of the system name. > > I think it needs to be part of the system name, because on ARM these are > two incompatible ABIs. Among other things, the hard-float ABI passes > floating point arguments in registers. > >> In theory, the bootstrap tarballs could be soft-float, which means they >> would run everywhere, and from there users could choose what >> --with-float and --with-fpu flags to use. > > A single GCC can generate code for both ABIs, but each ABI uses its own > dynamic linker. If we did as you suggest, we'd need two separate > bootstrap glibc's, and improve the dynamic-linker-name patching code in > our gcc package to rewrite the two dynamic linker names separately, etc.
Very good points, I had overlooked this. Thanks, Ludo’.
