On Fri Jan 28 2011 at 16:26:50 +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Fri Jan 28 2011 at 23:07:37 +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > additionally, userland is built with MKSOFTFLOAT=yes,
> >
> > Hmm.
> >
> > In that case, shouldn't we have different ${MACHINE_ARCH}
> > for different binaries?
>
> i think you're right. hmm, looking at the build cluster output there
> seem to be very few sets shared between mips archs (i don't know the
> details of how they are selected).
>
> Do you have a naming suggestion? mipsebsf? should the mips64 archs be
> renamed to follow the same convention?
Actually, shouldn't things work even with hardfloat binaries on a nofpu
arch with fpu emul, and softfloat binaries should work on a hardfloat
machine. The performance will not be the same, but isn't that technically
the same thing as compiler optimization for a certain cpu type?
(i never tried building/running non-softfloat binaries on emips)
--
älä karot toivorikkauttas, kyl rätei ja lumpui piisaa
