On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 14:27 -0400, Chris Tyler wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 14:11 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 28.09.2011, at 12:50, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On 27.09.2011, at 18:19, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are you using as a triplet for your
hard-float
port? The discussion at LPC focussed on this to some extent:
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2011-September/000054.html
Ah, nice. I didn't find that mail before. I only found one where
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 06:31:51PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: the
discussion on the target names "armhf" and "armv7hl" was raised, so we named the target "armv7hl" to be compatible with Fedora and Meego.
Fair enough, the internal name doesn't matter much. :-)
Well, it actually does matter because rpm compares it with the output of uname to check if the architecture is compatible. However, if we call it "armv7hl", we are incompatible with armv7l which logically would be missing VFP capabilities. Now, uname unfortunately only emits armv7l (see arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S), so we never know if our host is capable of running armv7hl code.
Any host with an armv7l kernel is *capable* of running armv7hl code (in v7 [A profile], vfp hardware must be present). Since kernel doesn't dictate the userspace API standard, it's impossible to select hardfp/softfp based on uname -- the kernel will work with either. In fact, we can and do mix the APIs on one system (by fiddling the LD paths and/or using chroot to prevent cross-API linking).
The real question is "what is the API variant of the binaries and libraries installed on the host?", which cannot be answered by querying the CPU or the kernel.
btw, I'd like to add a +1 to Chris' summary here. I would *love* to work with the OpenSuSE folks to standardize as much as we can. Jon. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-arm+help@opensuse.org