SSD on the Netwinder
daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Sat Apr 20 11:45:56 PDT 2019
On Thu, 2019-04-18 at 09:33 -0400, Ralph Siemsen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:01:18PM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> >That only covered the kernel. Do we know if userland can be handled
> >so simply?
> When I tried it a few years back, I did it the 'hard' way: modifying the
> makefile of each project to add the extra linker flag. It was very
> tedious and I only did a handful of packages.
> A better approach is to change the gcc wrapper. I believe that is what
> Douglas Paul did (see
> And I have noticed that there is a similar patch, for newer gcc, that is
> carried in the Yocto/openEmbedded project streams.
> >Has -march=armv4 actually gone?
> Evidently not yet. Yesterday I built with gcc-7.4.0, and today I have
> done another build with gcc-8.3.0. Both versions are producing armv4
> binaries without need for any special linker flags.
> >Would it be better to use the last GCC that supported -march=v4? I
> >assume that since the loss of support was in the future in 2017, it
> >might not be too much of a downgrade. The LKML message suggests that
> >GCC 8.0 would likely be the first compiler without armv4 support.
> I had read the same lkml thread, while trying to remember about the
> --fix-v4bx option. But I don't think that patch actually got merged into
> the mainline.
Rereading the https://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort page, it's unclear
whether gcc8 tweaks will allow the armel port to support StrongARM as
v4t. You think it might be possible?
More information about the Netwinder