On 5 April 2012 04:18, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
>> 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. Sorry for being ambigous. With "armel" I mean arm eabi with softfloat abi. What people agreed was useful was supporting those binaries along with eabi hardfloat binaries "armhf". Both are in this case little-endian. I'm not aware of anyone interested in different endian binaries on same systems. Riku _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
