Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2019-01-13 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22831#c25 steve, mike, any news on the use of the options recommended in comment #25 ? this for native 32-bit builds. Ian Lance Taylor 2019-01-09 23:48:45 UTC When using gold the key options are --no-mmap-output-file --no-map-whole-files --no-keep

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2019-01-09 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Thursday, May 17, 2012, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:18:38PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > >> >Would it be worth trying to link with gold for these? > >> > >> It might be, yes. I can try that with iceweasel on an imx53 or Panda > >> with 1GB if you like. Are there any non

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-18 Thread peter green
Something I didn't expect - it seems the toolchain in sid armhf is already configured to use gold by default using symlinks. I've done a gold build, now running with ld.bfd for comparison AIUI there is a package called "binutils-gold", if this is installed the default linker will be ld.gold, i

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-18 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 05:32:08PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > [ dropped -release, added direct mail to Mike; dunno if you're > subscribed to d-arm... ] I'm not. > >OK, cool. Building with ld and gold on a panda right now, to see how > >they compare. > > Something I didn't expect - it seems

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-18 Thread Steve McIntyre
[ dropped -release, added direct mail to Mike; dunno if you're subscribed to d-arm... ] On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 02:54:47PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:18:38PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: >>On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:56:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>> On Wed, May

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-18 Thread Hector Oron
Hello, 2012/5/16 Steve McIntyre : > [ Responding for both armel and armhf ] > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:19:46PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote: >>Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of >>http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html would be appreciated, >>as would any other

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-17 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:18:38PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: >On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:56:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:44:10PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: >> >Hi Steve, >> >> Hey Mike, >> >> >On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >>

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-16 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:56:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:44:10PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > >Hi Steve, > > Hey Mike, > > >On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> In terms of raw buildd CPU right now, I think we're doing OK, but > >

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-16 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:44:10PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: >Hi Steve, Hey Mike, >On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> In terms of raw buildd CPU right now, I think we're doing OK, but >> memory is more of a limiting factor with bigger C++ builds. > >As maintainer o

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-16 Thread Mike Hommey
Hi Steve, On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > In terms of raw buildd CPU right now, I think we're doing OK, but > memory is more of a limiting factor with bigger C++ builds. As maintainer of such a package that pushes buildds limits, I have a question. Isn't memory r

Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-16 Thread Steve McIntyre
[ Responding for both armel and armhf ] On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:19:46PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote: >Hi, > >With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears, >we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release >architectures for the Wheezy release. > >Co

armhf qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-16 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi, With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears, we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release architectures for the Wheezy release. Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html wou