On 08.10.2012, at 11:07, Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2012, 14:27:19 schrieb Andrew Wafaa:
On 5 October 2012 14:20, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2012, 14:57:16 schrieb Guillaume Gardet: ...
> Adrian wanted to switch it to armv5el completely, to get rid of that naming difference. Or at least make a sym link as a workaround. We have currently a broken rpm package on armv5, I bootstrap i currently manually. Afterwards we need to do a clean rebuild, so please do not add workarounds until we tried that.
I hope it solves the problem.
Ok. Ping us when it can be tested.
checking this again, using armv5 without thumb would make us quite special. Debian and Fedora are using both thumb. And ubuntu gave up on v5 at all.
So, I really wonder if the decision to not use thumb on v5 is really the right one or if we should revisit this.
I would say we most certainly DO WANT thumb support. IIRC all v5 implementations have thumb so regardless of what hardware one would use it on it would work. We should avoid doing something different to the others especially as it wouldn't make us better but actually worse. Saying that v5 shouldn't consume cycles if there are issues on v7.
Do we have the agreement that we want to enable thumb in factory for v5 and v7 to look where the problems are?
It was the java stack on v7, I have no idea what it was on v5.
But in any case, we want to solve them?
Good question. How about we enable thumb for v7, but leave it off for gcj? That way we work around the broken Java issue, but still get all the fancy thumb'ness. For thumb-1, which is what v5 uses, all benchmarks I've seen so far showed slowdowns from using it, so I wouldn't recommend enabling it. Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org