Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

On Tue, Jul 06, 2010, Joey Hess wrote:
> Could the targeted CPU be used in the name? Ie, armelv7.

 I would be a bit scared that this has a chance of getting out of date,
 or be confusing because other ports might be v7 as well, or also
 because this only reflects a subset of the ports' requirement (VFP
 level for instance isn't reflected, such as vfpv2, vfpv3).

> FWIW, I've benchmarked a VFP libm to run benchmarks like whetstone 4x
> faster than regular armel libm. A VFP Mesa can speed up glxgears by
> nearly 2x on some hardware. It would be handy to have VFP versions of
> such targeted libraries. In general though VFP is not worth it.

 Mesa is indeed an interesting package to provide a VFP version of, good
 idea


 The approach of alternative packages is a bit painful:
 - one can ship vfp and non-vfp lib in the same package, but then
   everybody pays the disk space for both
 - one can split them up, but how do they get properly pulled on user
   systems?
 - and the changes to the rules to have multiple passes might be
   intrusive in some packages

-- 
Loïc Minier