On 29/09/2010 19:46, Loïc Minier wrote: > Hey folks > >> I played around with the package, it compiled with plain settings, but >> it was rather unoptimised (armv5t, etc). So I decided to make it to >> build a specialized version for armhf (armv7-a basically, >> float-abi=hard is implied in the compiler settings as it is the >> default). I attach the patch I used. > > Cool! > > I'm a bit worried about the implementation though: this essentially > boils down to letting the build system chose optimizations based on > uname -m, which is really bad. > > Debian armel might be built on "armv7l" machines someday (quite likely > in fact) and armhf might be built on "armv8l" someday, so not a good > idea to hardcode uname -> target optimization. > This new arch also feels weird: you end up duplicating a lot of the > arch:arm stuff in your arch:armv7l; this will get out of date because > it's duplicated. > > Instead, I would propose (but didn't test) to remove this entirely: > 'CCFLAGS': ['-march=armv5t'] > from SConstruct's 'arch:arm' definition. That would be the only > change. > > Without this flag, the build will just use the toolchain defaults, > which is exactly what we want on both armel and armhf! It's also > better for derivatives like Ubuntu or other distros which have > different toolchain defaults.
Hi all, i'm removing the march=armv4t flag from SContruct (it was a patch anyway), since it's up to the debian gcc armel default target to decide which arch it should compile for. I'm also checking if the other flag no-thumb-interwork is still needed, since there has been some upstream work on it recently. I don't think other changes are needed. Do you ? To be uploaded with libv8 2.4.9.12. Regards, Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
