Re: gcc armel status and armel architecture defaults

[Wookey <wookey@wookware.org>]

+++ Matthias Klose [2014-01-13 05:51 +0100]:
> Hi,
> 
> the gcc-4.9 in experimental fails to build while the one for armhf succeeds.
> Please could somebody from the arm porters look into this?
> 
> If I remember correctly we had some issues with the arm soft float port already
> with gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8.  Are the armv4t defaults still needed, or would it
> better to default to some newer arm version like armv5t?

The v4t default is still desired by some people, and no-one has demonstrated a
speed rom changing to v5, but at some point we expect lack of toolchain
support to force us to move. Maybe that point has arrived, or maybe it's
a simple patch.

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/