On Mon, Nov 05, 2012, chrysn wrote: > i rather thought of them as different levels of tuning, where the > different multi-arch architectures are "everything where you need a > different gcc" and the different multi-lib directories are "what can be > done with the same gcc".
At the moment, we have different multiarch triplets for different ABIs; multi-lib is an upstream concept that allows supporting different ABIs but also different optimization levels. > that illusion is fading as i see that while arm-none-eabi-gcc and > arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc are often used differently, they can produce the > same code. That's yet another concept: arm-none-eabi-gcc is a "bare-metal" compiler that doesn't target any OS. You can build bare-metal binaries (such as U-Boot) with both compilers, but you can only build Linux binaries with arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc. > still, i see the case at hand more as multi-lib thing than a multi-arch > thing for pragmatic reasons: we can't expect to have a debian > architecture dedicated to something that won't even run linux, can we? We have Debian architectures for kfreebsd and hurd, so why not? :-) Also, I believe Cortex-M can run linux with no-MMU patches/configs and uclibc? But it's definitely not a trivial port, you're right. -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
