Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant

[Konstantinos Margaritis <markos@genesi-usa.com>]

On Thursday 15 July 2010 21:06:52 Paul Brook wrote:
> Not quite. It provides a mechanism for selecting different routines without
> the runtime overhead of a check on every call.  It effecitvely provides a
>  hook into the dynamaic linker that allows you to decide which function to
>  export for a particular symbol.  A typical example is to select CPU
>  specific implementations of memcpy. You still need to supply all the
>  different implementations, and a function to determine which to use.

Er, of course I'd have to supply all the implementations, the difference is 
that there is now a proper and common way to do it -anyone who's checked 
xine/mplayer/vlc source will know what I mean. Still, it's very good news that 
something like this has -at last- been implemented. 

> All the implementations must use the same ABI.

Of course. I totally understand that this is not a way to keep softfp/hardfp 
versions in the same binary.

Konstantinos