Re: Openembedded and ld-linux-armhf.so.3

["Martin Ertsås" <martiert@gmail.com>]

On 05/03/12 09:48, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 03-05-12 08:48, Martin Ertsås schreef:
> > On 05/02/12 23:06, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> On 05/02/2012 02:35 AM, Martin Ertsås wrote:
> >>> The patches posted seems to be working fine. I at least didn't have
> >>> any problems with them.
> >>
> >>
> >> thanks for trying them out. GCC patch is final but eglibc patch I still
> >> got to improve that its not final version yet.
>
> > No problem. Is there also plans for renaming the toolchains created to
> > arm-none-linux-gnueabihf when using hardfloats?
>
> What's the point in that? Renaming the toolchain won't grant it magical
> powers and setting a targetvendor is perfectly valid.
>
> I've seen too many presentations this year at ELC and Collab where someone
> says "renaming the toolchain fixed it" when they actually mean "using a
> bare-metal toolchain for userspace doesn't really work".
> Just look at the building the kernel with LLVM talk, a third of Marks
> presentation was about challenges with calling the right toolchain
> with the
> right arguments.
>
> </rant>

Fair point, I was just told that some packages might look at the name of
the toolchain, and perhaps not give the optimal path for hard floats
with the name of linux-gnueabi. Clearly some packages do actually look
at the name of the toolchain, but for most cases at least, the only
difference will be the hardfloat flag given to the compiler. Also seen
quite a few toolchains using hardfloats which has the hf prefix, to show
that this is actually a hardfloat toolchain.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel