SSD on the Netwinder

Ralph Siemsen ralphs at netwinder.org
Mon Apr 22 06:10:23 PDT 2019


On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 08:54:23AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>
>The discussions on that page propose, among other things, mandating 
>those proposals long predated the armhf port, so the possibility I was 
>referring to would be of banishing Thumb interworking (Scenario #4) 
>from armel built with gcc8 and --march=armv4t in favor of having only 
>armhf built with Thumb interworking, especially since there are 
>competing armhf ports: Debian (armv7), Raspbian (armv6), Ubuntu 
>(armv7). I'm hoping that after these years, the libgcc problem 
>mentioned in Scenario #7 no longer applies.

Indeed the discussion on that page was to justify the original armel 
port. Apparently there were some significant v4t users who needed Thumb 
support (and hence Thumb interworking) due to size constraints, see
https://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2006/06/msg00034.html

To me at least, the decision of armel targeting minimum v4t CPU is a 
done deal. I can't see the Debian project changing it now. Of course I 
am saying that as an individual, I don't speak for Debian, nor Fedora, 
etc. I just see a dwindling user and developer base for these older 
devices.

-Ralph



More information about the Netwinder mailing list