On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:05:04AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: >On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 23:45 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> So this is a place where the world is just *different* compared to x86 >> - the different versions of the ARM architectures have signficantly >> different capabilities. If you're looking to build something that >> performs well on a modern v7 CPU, compilling for v5 is a >> mistake. You'll be using the wrong locking primitives, barriers, >> etc. Equally, the features you're going to be looking for (like SMP, >> NEON) just don't make sense / don't exist on v5 CPUs. > >To spell it out: the gist of this is that it isn't possible to provide >a single arm binary which works well for both armel and armhf (which I >think is what Jeff is trying/wants to do?). > >The advice here is to instead ship[0] two binaries -- one targetting v5 >(no neon etc, aka armel in Debian) and another targetting v7 (w/ >possible(? I forget what is optional) neon and other stuff aka armhf in >Debian and other distros).
Yep. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth
