Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant
> On 7/9/10, Martin Guy <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Any mistake by users trying to mix the regular armel packages and
> > the hardfloat ABI ones would just fail immediately.
> Erm my mistake. *Should* fail immediately but don't.
> I just ran some tests on Maverick hardfloat in a Debian armel
> environment, and gcc-4.2 and 4.3 happily link -mfloat-abi=hard and
> -mfloat-abi=soft objects together to give executables that return
> complete rubbish.
This is a bug in your toolchain port. AFAIK noone's bothered defining the
relevant EABI supplements for the maverick FPU.
VFP ABI objects are correctly tagged as such, and the linker correctly rejects
mismatches. I don't know offhand whether the dynamic linker does the same.