On 7 December 2010 18:35, Paul Brook wrote:
>> In essence, I would like to express my objection in having the same triplet
>> for both softfp and hard ABIs. I know upstream (ARM) objects, but IMHO they
>> just haven't done the extensive compiling I have and didn't consider the
>> problems (I doubt
> In essence, I would like to express my objection in having the same triplet
> for both softfp and hard ABIs. I know upstream (ARM) objects, but IMHO they
> just haven't done the extensive compiling I have and didn't consider the
> problems (I doubt anyone else has built ~8000 packages for a hardf
(resend: typo in the address field, this was send to 594...@bugs.debian.org
and linaro-...@lists.linaro.org originally, please add those in the replies)
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 16:02:16 Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am patching machines to support armhf, which it is almost at 90%
> bui
Hello,
2010/12/6 George Danchev :
[...]
> Could that be a compiler or linker, or we are missing knowledge for certain
> types in armel. We would appreciate any pointers towards possible resolution
> of the issue.
I am getting 'note: the mangling of ‘va_list’ has changed in GCC 4.4'
message on mos
4 matches
Mail list logo
