On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:01:47 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > one of the downsides of traveling down a path and upstreaming as an after > thought
You didn't really follow arm hardfloat progress in the past 2 years, did you (if you did you'd already be aware of attempts to get this thing upstreamed for more than a year). Honestly, I'm curious, are you speaking your personal opinion or on behalf of Gentoo? If the former then consider that we're trying to get consensus amongst distros not people, it's impossible to make everyone happy, but we'd be content to get distro people to agree on a standard. If the latter, then also have in mind that GCC upstream is waiting for distro agreement to include the proposed triplet (arm-linux-gnueabihf) in gcc. So, if distro people here agreed on that, gcc upstream would have no problem as well. Agreed on the redundant linux part, my mistake for proposing it. So, I guess something like: /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabhif.so.3 or using the ABI name: /lib/ld-linux-aapcs-vfp.so.3 are the most likely candidates to be agreed by most distros, at least as I see it. Konstantinos _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
