On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:18 PM Wookey wrote:
>
> On 2019-02-28 09:05 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > To spell it out: the gist of this is that it isn't possible to provide
> > a single arm binary which works well for both armel and armhf (which I
> > think is what Jeff is trying/wants to do?).
On 2019-02-28 09:05 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> To spell it out: the gist of this is that it isn't possible to provide
> a single arm binary which works well for both armel and armhf (which I
> think is what Jeff is trying/wants to do?).
Just to clarify: it's not possible to built a binary whi
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:05:04AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>
>> To spell it out: the gist of this is that it isn't possible to provide
>> a single arm binary which works well for both armel and armhf (which I
>> think is what Jeff i
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:05:04AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> To spell it out: the gist of this is that it isn't possible to provide
> a single arm binary which works well for both armel and armhf (which I
> think is what Jeff is trying/wants to do?).
It is not even possible to provide a sing
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:05:04AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 23:45 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> So this is a place where the world is just *different* compared to x86
>> - the different versions of the ARM architectures have signficantly
>> different capabilities. If
On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 23:45 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 06:30:36PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:46 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > So, I've got to ask - what hardware are you likely targeting here
> > > where it matters to build stuff for arm
6 matches
Mail list logo
