On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Chris Tyler <chris(a)tylers.info> wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 11:14 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Chris Tyler <chris(a)tylers.info> wrote:
> > hardfp would break compatibility with all of the existing binary
> > packages, and hardfp can't be compiled by gcc for any of the CPUs I have
> > got my hands on so far.
They key point here, as I sort this out, is that *the gcc we currently
have in Fedora* does not support hardfp on vfp-equipped CPUs.
> It would seem that its a definite second repository like i686/x86-64
> but it also seems that there's patches pending for gcc 4.5.1 so it
> might a F-15 target unless we can get an updated gcc for F-14 but the
> BeagleBoard and n900 should both support some version of hardfp
Agreed, this really is boiling down to the question:
(a) Do we use a different compiler than is currently included in Fedora,
(b) Do we wait until a version of gcc that supports hardfp on vfp is
available in Fedora (4.5.x, likely in the F15 timeframe).
I don't want to wait for (b) but I think it's a better option than (a).
I think b is the better option, the other thing is that we are still
currently well behind Fedora mainline with F-12 being the currently
working release. To try and get F-13 and F-14 on two arches working is
a lot of work when we're already far behind. I personally would almost
skip F-13 and go for F-14 with the current arm5 and aim for F-15 with
both. I'm not sure what the implications are for skipping a release
within the koji-shadow etc infra nor do I know what OLPCs plans are
(as they are the only ones currently wanting to use Fedora ARM for a
actual project) but they seem to be aiming to jump from F-11 to F-14
for their next release, but I don't know if that includes the XO-1.75.