[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant

On 7/9/10, Hector Oron <hector.oron@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > I prefer 'armhf', FWIW.
>  Somebody against 'armhf'? Have we got it?
>  And for the triplet, is it OK to use vendor tag as explained in the
>  wiki page[1]?
>   arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi
>  or
>   armhf-linux-gnueabi

What are the effects of the name choice?
Is it really just a matter of personal taste?
Can we just as well call it "sprongly"? Or is, for example,
"armsprongly" more likely to give less grief? Or is "armelsprongly"
even better? This depends on the patterns recognized by existing
config and build scripts.

>From the EABI port I remember build files being changed to recognize
the tuple "arm*-linux-gnu*", hoping to future-proof themselves, so
that would seem wise to follow.

I also remember "debian-arch =~ arm*" being used in some cases, again
suggesting as arch name that starts with "arm"

If the name really is totally arbitrary, I'd suggest using something
that reflects with as much precision as possible, the target of the
port, such as
"armv7", "armvfp" "armvfp3". That leaves the gate open to future neon
ports, vfp4-32 ports, thumb2 ports and (gak!) maverick ports, without
asserting that in all cases fp means vfp means vfp3-16

There is another technical question WRT the triple: that is be a valid
GCC configuration triple, for which, in FOO-linux-gnueabi, FOO be a
valid argument of the "-march=" flag. It would be well for the vendor
string to correspond to whatever the compiler returns as a version
string, though I understand that it really needs to corrispond to



Reply to: