Re: [gentoo-user] cross compiling arm with 17 profiles.

[R0b0t1]

Hello,

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Mart Raudsepp  wrote:
> On P, 2017-12-17 at 16:50 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>> Something I cant figure out:
>>
>> ARM is still on the 13 profiles - should an amd64 system used to
>> cross
>> compile for arm (Raspberry Pi's) be left on the 13 profiles or 17
>> will
>> work fine?
>
> ARM profiles are delayed to potentially fix CHOSTs together with the
> profile update. Though no-one is actively doing the work to my
> knowledge right now.
>
> I guess it could cause trouble from default PIE vs no PIE from native
> compiler, but I don't know enough about that field to know for sure.
>

If you know anything at all that is more than myself, so can you link
to past discussions that you are aware of?

> If you pay attention to any future CHOST changes and handle them
> yourself at the right time, you could manually choose the appropriate
> 17.0 arm profile as your symlink (it doesn't show up in eselect profile
> due to no profiles.desc entry, but should be there in profiles/). If
> changes are done, you might be caught a bit off-guard though at the
> time they are done though and I'm not sure what the effects of that
> would be either (probably not too bad).
>

My experience with ARM(64) is that it is mature enough that you can
expect @system to work unless proven otherwise. Lots of other packages
have failures.

Cheers,
 R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-user] cross compiling arm with 17 profiles.

[Mart Raudsepp]

On P, 2017-12-17 at 16:50 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> Something I cant figure out:
> 
> ARM is still on the 13 profiles - should an amd64 system used to
> cross
> compile for arm (Raspberry Pi's) be left on the 13 profiles or 17
> will
> work fine?

ARM profiles are delayed to potentially fix CHOSTs together with the
profile update. Though no-one is actively doing the work to my
knowledge right now.

I guess it could cause trouble from default PIE vs no PIE from native
compiler, but I don't know enough about that field to know for sure.

If you pay attention to any future CHOST changes and handle them
yourself at the right time, you could manually choose the appropriate
17.0 arm profile as your symlink (it doesn't show up in eselect profile
due to no profiles.desc entry, but should be there in profiles/). If
changes are done, you might be caught a bit off-guard though at the
time they are done though and I'm not sure what the effects of that
would be either (probably not too bad).

[gentoo-user] cross compiling arm with 17 profiles.

[Bill Kenworthy]

Something I cant figure out:

ARM is still on the 13 profiles - should an amd64 system used to cross
compile for arm (Raspberry Pi's) be left on the 13 profiles or 17 will
work fine?

BillK