On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 12:34, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Wed Oct 29, 2003 at 09:07:42AM +0000, Wookey wrote: > > That is a more sensible default I agree. Makes life difficult for the > > ARM7500FE people, but it does seem more sensible than making it difficult > > for everybody else, which is the current state of affairs. If we compile > > everything for soft-float on arm how hard is it to use the real FPU on the > > few chips (one chip?) that do support it - does everything need recompiling > > due to incompatible ABIs? > > > > Even in this case I think it's still worth doing, as FPUed arm chips are in > > such a tiny minority, but Vince might complain (as an arm7500FE machine > > vendor :-). > > There would need to be a separate hard-float distro for that. > Each and every binary and library compiled for soft-float would > be totally incompatible with hard-float.
Would this mean that uClibc would NOT work for processors such as the AMD ElanSC520 (i486 with FPU) ?
