Re: gcc armel status and armel architecture defaults
On 13/01/2014, Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> wrote:
> +++ Matthias Klose [2014-01-13 05:51 +0100]:
>> the gcc-4.9 in experimental fails to build while the one for armhf
>> succeeds.
>> 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.
The same defect occurs on on armv5t, host, target and build, so that's
not a solution.
M
Reply to: