From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Subject: Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:24:06 -0500
Message-ID: <874msb7915.fsf@netris.org>
References: <87lhln7mlk.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47917)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1Y6Rg2-0003IV-BS
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:23:39 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1Y6Rfz-0007zy-44
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:23:38 -0500
Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:58128)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1Y6Rfz-0007zr-0H
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:23:35 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87lhln7mlk.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 31
	Dec 2014 12:31:03 -0500")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: guix-devel@gnu.org

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> I've pushed a new branch 'wip-armhf' (not to be confused with 'wip-arm')
> which seems likely to finish natively building bootstrap tarballs soon.
> It is based on the 'core-updates' branch.

I believe that my cross-compiled bootstrap tarballs are bad and have to
be rebuilt.  Despite passing both --target=arm-linux-gnueabihf and
--with-float=hard to GCC's configure, I believe that GCC was using the
soft-float ABI for ARM by default.  This is especially bad given that
our dynamic linker has a name that indicates the hard-float ABI.

For now, I've pushed another commit to the 'wip-armhf' branch that will
hopefully make it *cross-build* armhf bootstrap tarballs properly, but
it is not yet suitable for building on an arm box because it refers to
the existing (bad) bootstrap tarballs.

I'll post an update when this issue is resolved.

      Mark