Re: My progress on armhf: xf86-video-msm for armhf attempt. Please test.
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:06:55PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> Right. That's almost certainly a bug. My guess would be cargo-cult copying
> or an old hack to workaround borkenness elsewhere.
OK, so simply removing the explicit CFLAGS settings in the Makefile,
should make the package work correctly on both armel and armhf.
That would be nice and simple.
> Very little.
One of these days llvm might actually be usable. It has to be better
than using gcc.... Argh!
> Your toolchain config is slightly confused. The multilib selection bits don't
> quite match what your compiler is actually generating. However you only have
> a single set of libraries (i.e. aren't using multilibs), so that's completely
> irrelevant and harmless.
Well I didn't make the toolchain, I just use what is in armhf at the
moment.
> In the unlikely event that you did decide to build multilibs with/without
> interworking (which for any vaguely recent core would be completely pointless
> and have no effect as interworking is enabled whether you want it or not) it
> might cause some subtle breakage. Until then the only effect is to confuse
> people who don't understand what they're reading (i.e. you). GCC spec files,
> and multilib selection in partiular, is a horribly crufty mess which tends to
> acquire historic warts like this. It's also in the process of being
> rewritten, so noone cares.
So is there a way to ask gcc "What the hell are your defaults right now?".
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: