This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: Use different linker path for hardfloat ABI
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, cross-distro at lists dot linaro dot org, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libc-ports at sourceware dot org" <libc-ports at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:07:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: Use different linker path for hardfloat ABI
- References: <CANLjY-kZ6FakmtKkHjjC2YNgCBkydiNq8F81Fb7SgW0RE6iF5w@mail.gmail.com> <4FBC8DCB.6020006@suse.com> <4FBC982F.7040403@arm.com> <201205231001.17818.aj@suse.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205231017070.5860@jbgna.fhfr.qr>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:17:51AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 09:56:31 Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > This is a behaviour change. It would need RM approval for a release
> > > branch.
> > >
> > > R.
> >
> > There was agreement by all pushing for the change to use it. So, let's ask
> > the release managers about their opinion,
>
> I'm ok with the change - but of course only to carry one less patch
> in our local tree. What do others think? It would definitely (anyway)
> need documenting in changes.html (for both 4.7.1 and 4.8).
I'm ok with that change as well (again, would apply that too), but note that
it isn't effortless on the side of gcc users, with the patch in they either
need recent enough glibc, or at least make a compatiblity symlink.
Jakub