On 13/01/2014, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Matthias Klose [2014-01-13 05:51 +0100]:
>> the gcc-4.9 in experimental fails to build while the one for armhf
>> succeeds.
>> If I remember correctly we had some issues with the arm soft float port
>> already
>> with gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8. Are the armv4t defaults
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 08:32:49AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 05:51 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > the gcc-4.9 in experimental fails to build while the one for armhf succeeds.
> For reference the logs are at:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-4.9&arch
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 05:51 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the gcc-4.9 in experimental fails to build while the one for armhf succeeds.
For reference the logs are at:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-4.9&arch=armel&ver=4.9-20140111-1&stamp=1389510444
build/genpreds -c .
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Are the armv4t defaults still needed, or would it be
> better to default to some newer arm version like armv5t?
There is one Debian derivative, QtMoko, which is one of the few usable
distributions on the Openmoko Freerunner (gta02). Switch
+++ Matthias Klose [2014-01-13 05:51 +0100]:
> Hi,
>
> the gcc-4.9 in experimental fails to build while the one for armhf succeeds.
> Please could somebody from the arm porters look into this?
>
> If I remember correctly we had some issues with the arm soft float port
> already
> with gcc-4.7 an
Hi,
the gcc-4.9 in experimental fails to build while the one for armhf succeeds.
Please could somebody from the arm porters look into this?
If I remember correctly we had some issues with the arm soft float port already
with gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8. Are the armv4t defaults still needed, or would it
6 matches
Mail list logo
