SSD on the Netwinder

Daniel Gimpelevich daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Mon Apr 22 06:26:37 PDT 2019


On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 09:10 -0400, Ralph Siemsen wrote:
> 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

OK. I definitely misread that mailing list message before. Any thoughts
on --fix-v4bx breaking the cfcmp* routines in libgcc
(gcc/config/arm/ieee-{sf,df}.S) as mentioned on the Debian wiki page?




More information about the Netwinder mailing list