On Wednesday 04 April 2012 21:31:20 dann frazier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:18:13PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote: > > > On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > >> yes, this was brought up at Linaro Connect as well; having the ldso > > > >> name in a multiarch location doesn't mean that anything else needs > > > >> to be in this location. > > > > > > > > while true, it seems like /lib/<ldso> vs /lib/<multiarch>/<ldso> > > > > needs to be handled by the multiarch people regardless (for > > > > historical support), while non-multiarch peeps never have /lib/xxx/ > > > > subdirs. > > > > > > > > i know it's a bit of bike shedding, but if the mainline standard is > > > > /lib/<ldso> and multiarch peeps have to deal with that already, it'd > > > > make more sense to stick with /lib/<ldso>. > > > > > > The choice of using multiarch path for armhf linker path was agreed > > > mostly because 1) people agreed that having the possibility of armhf > > > and armel binaries on the same systems is useful and 2) nobody > > > proposed anything else. > > > > i don't see value in having multiple endians being active simultaneously. > > it might make for a fun exercise, but people won't deploy systems with > > them both installed. after all, the kernel isn't bi-endian on the fly. > > Do you mean multiple ABIs?
no -- i said "endian" here a few times. i agree that multiple ABIs makes sense. (let's not pointlessly nitpick endian encoding as part of the ABI and just go with what people more commonly use.) > The kernel does support both EABI (Debian's armel) and EABI/Hardfloat > (Debian's armhf) concurrently too bad the OABI shim is buggy :( -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
