Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster
On 08/28/2017 12:53 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> OTOH the only relevant hardware for armel these days seems
> to be RPi, so why not make armel into armhfv6 instead?
Aren't most RPi users running Raspian anyway which is armhf with -march
set to ARMv6? Bumping armel from soft-fp to ARMv6 hard-fp doesn't seem to
make much sense to me though.
I mean, if you want modern ARM32 support, you need to go to ARMv7 anyway
because that's what most upstream seem assume for native code generator
support (GHC, OpenJDK-9, ...) and other performance benefits these days,
simply because ARMv7 brings lots of improvements to the instruction set,
in particular proper support for atomics.
Again, armel is currently perfectly usable and stable - *as is* - so I
don't see why that topic is brought up so often for discussion. I could
understand the discussion if armel was in a similar situation as m68k
or sh4 which still need lots of work which is why they are just around
10,500 packages being up-to-date. armel, OTOH, has over 12,200 packages
up-to-date, that's almost the same amount of packages as arm64 or ppc64el.
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - firstname.lastname@example.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - email@example.com
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913