On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:05:04AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: >> >> 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?). > >It is not even possible to provide a single arm binary that runs on >both armel and armhf.[1] It is a different ABI.
It's *technically* possible for binaries that don't ever pass FP values as function arguments, but it's really not recommended and you'd have to fight with the toolchain a lot to do it. >> 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). > >The main difference between armel and armhf is not the baseline >(at some point Ubuntu had bumped the armel baseline to v7), the >main difference is that there is no FPU in the armel baseline. >Which also means that floating-point parameters must get passed >in integer registers since there are no floating-point registers >in the ABI. Nod. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control.