Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver 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
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> I chose system name "armhf-linux", GNU triplet "arm-linux-gnueabihf",
>> and the following GCC configure flags:
>>
>>--with-arch=armv7-a
>>--with-float=hard
>>--with-mode=thumb
>>--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
>
> Does it
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Mark H Weaver 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
Mark H Weaver 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
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> I've pushed a new branch 'wip-armhf' (not to be confused with 'wip-arm')
> which seems likely to finish natively building bootstrap tarballs soon.
> It is based on the 'core-updates' branch.
Cool!
> I chose system name "armhf-linux", GNU triplet "arm-linux-gnueabihf",
>
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 01:22:53PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
John Darrington writes:
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 02:11:19AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> John Darrington writes:
>
> > * You patched gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h unnecessarily.
John Darrington writes:
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 02:11:19AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> John Darrington writes:
>
> > * You patched gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h unnecessarily.
> >
> > Without that patch, GCC actually builds soft-float code, even though
> > y
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 02:11:19AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
John Darrington writes:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 06:40:23PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>
> * You added "CFLAGS=-Wno-cast-qual" and "--disable-werror" for ARM
in
>'gcc-configure-flags
John Darrington writes:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 06:40:23PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>
> * You added "CFLAGS=-Wno-cast-qual" and "--disable-werror" for ARM in
>'gcc-configure-flags-for-triplet', which I thought was a bad idea and
>didn't belong there.
>
> Have you t
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 06:40:23PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
* You added "CFLAGS=-Wno-cast-qual" and "--disable-werror" for ARM in
'gcc-configure-flags-for-triplet', which I thought was a bad idea and
didn't belong there.
Have you tried actually building GCC ? I found t
Hi John,
John Darrington writes:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>
> John Darrington writes:
> > It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and
> > the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag.
>
>
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> I've pushed a new branch 'wip-armhf' (not to be confused with 'wip-arm')
>> which seems likely to finish natively building bootstrap tarballs soon.
>> It is based on the 'core-updates' branch.
>
> I believe that my cross-compiled bootstrap tarba
Mark H Weaver writes:
> I've pushed a new branch 'wip-armhf' (not to be confused with 'wip-arm')
> which seems likely to finish natively building bootstrap tarballs soon.
> It is based on the 'core-updates' branch.
I believe that my cross-compiled bootstrap tarballs are bad and have to
be rebuil
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
John Darrington writes:
> It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and
> the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag.
That is not even close to the truth, as anyone
Hi John,
John Darrington writes:
> It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and
> the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag.
That is not even close to the truth, as anyone who actually looks at the
branches (or tries to build them) can easily see. John,
It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and the
wip-armhf
branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag.
I'm not an ARM expert, so I don't know how important that setting is. But I do
know
that there are many different fpus - if we are going to have a new branch for
eve
Hello Guix,
I've pushed a new branch 'wip-armhf' (not to be confused with 'wip-arm')
which seems likely to finish natively building bootstrap tarballs soon.
It is based on the 'core-updates' branch.
I chose system name "armhf-linux", GNU triplet "arm-linux-gnueabihf",
and the following GCC config
17 matches
Mail list logo
