On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 03:48:26PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I haven't tried gcc-4.7 on my armv4t machines yet, because I fear > > similar issues like with binutils gold (which are still not resolved), > > because nobody uses armv4t much nowadays :/. > > yes I have tried qemuarm/armv4t build along with qemuarm/armv5t build > as a test on 4.7 > it boots systemd-image fine. But I would expect others to chime in and > provide some > testing help on their platforms/machines, I am still actively fixing > and rebasing > the 4.7 patches so expect a bit of churn there > > > > > The same I fear from 4.6 from meta-linaro, but maybe they will be > > responsive as you were, when I reported issues on armv4t with some new > > patch added by linaro.. > > I will make sure that happens and I will be maintaining the layer at > above location
Why? Do we need another fork? Can you upstream your fixes? > and see how the interaction goes and will help in maintaining the layer > > So using meta-linaro for gcc-4.6 and gcc-4.7 is fine, but please keep > > current "snapshot" of gcc-4.6 (oe-core+toolchain-layer patches) > > somewhere as safe version before meta-linaro 4.6 is well tested on all > > devices. > > yes essentially we can recover is any time and in worst case I have to > maintain > meta-linaro in which case we can merge both into one and maintain it > but I will actively > seek linaro's help in maintaining the layer. -- Denys _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel