From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:40:23 -0500 Message-ID: <87vbkr5qxk.fsf@netris.org> References: <87lhln7mlk.fsf@netris.org> <20141231174719.GA8456@intra> <878uhn7he5.fsf@netris.org> <20141231202012.GA23085@jocasta.intra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52798) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y6Sru-0008W5-Ly for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:39:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y6Srq-0005bm-Kv for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:39:58 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:58320) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y6Srq-0005be-Hc for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:39:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141231202012.GA23085@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message of "Wed, 31 Dec 2014 21:20:12 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: John Darrington Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi John, John Darrington writes: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: > > John Darrington writes: > > It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and > > the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag. > > That is not even close to the truth, as anyone who actually looks at the > branches (or tries to build them) can easily see. John, I appreciate > your preliminary work on 'wip-arm', and I credited you in the final > patch on 'wip-armhf', but you didn't get very far. > > No I didn't. I didn't think it worth even creating a branch, but civodul asked me to. > So I was surprised and disappointed that nobody wanted to help take it further. Initially, I hoped to build upon your branch instead of starting a new one. However, when I took a close look, I found that there was not a single hunk of your initial commit (0386b83a2) that I could use: * You called the system 'armel-linux', but I preferred to save that name for a possible soft-float system analogous to Debian's 'armel' port. * You used the triplet 'armel-linux-gnueabihf'. I tried that, but found that a great many copies of 'config.sub' in the wild fail to recognize 'armel' as the machine name when there is also a company name in the triplet. After a few experiments with other triplets, I settled on 'arm-linux-gnueabihf', which is what Debian uses. * You chose higher FPU requirements than Debian, and tuned compiles for cortex-a9. I'm open to discussing these choices, but without careful research I'd be more inclined to follow Debian's lead. * You added "CFLAGS=-Wno-cast-qual" and "--disable-werror" for ARM in 'gcc-configure-flags-for-triplet', which I thought was a bad idea and didn't belong there. * You patched gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h unnecessarily. Given that every piece of your foundation needed modification, it didn't seem to make sense to build on it. > You said your branch also wasn't ready, that's why I haven't tried to > build it. From your description, I wasn't clear what your branch > achieves that my attempt doesn't. 'wip-armhf' is well on its way to building native bootstrap tarballs on my Novena board. Given the many problems in the early bootstrap that I had to fix along the way, it is clear that 'wip-arm' in it's current state wouldn't get very far. Mark