On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:27:17 +
Mans Rullgard wrote:
> FWIW, Gentoo has been using arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi for hardfloat
> configurations ever since gcc started supporting it. That's of course
> not a triplet, strictly speaking.
Also fwiw, I have been assured from Gentoo developers that t
On 17 December 2011 09:17, peter green
wrote:
> While we are talking about modifying sys/ucontext.h David Given
> raised another issue with that header (for those reading on the linaro list
> his
> post can be found at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2011/12/msg00048.html)
> David Given>This
iMX53 Efika.
Thanks
Konstantinos Margaritis
hats: Genesi, Linaro, Debian.
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On 22 October 2011 16:17, Joop Boonen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Most of the (ARM) distros are currently working on or in the transition to
> hardfp, but until now most GPU's in de ARM Cortex SOCs don't have any
> hardfp drivers yet.
>
> To be able to have a ARM hardfp compiled X Window desktop system/n
On 29 August 2011 17:22, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We (Developer Platform) are looking into making Ubuntu/Debian more
> cross-compile friendly. In order to
> decide what to focus on on first, I'd like to ask from input from you
> - what would you like to be able to
> cross-compile for the Linar
On 6 May 2011 19:57, David Gilbert wrote:
> 2011/5/6 Christian Robottom Reis :
> I don't think there are that many things that are vastly useful for the
> kernel,
> but here is a summary (I intend to write a full report at some point but
> am still fighting SPEC for some benchmark stats and some
On 5 May 2011 17:57, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Technically it *can*, but you'll then have to be responsible for
> dealing with all the extra register save/restores for context
> switches. Normal wisdom is that it's just not worth that cost unless
> you're doing an extended amount of such code (e.g.
On 5 May 2011 17:21, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> I was asked today in the board meeting about the use of NEON
> routines in the kernel; I said we had looked into this but hadn't done
> it because a) it wasn't conclusively better and b) if better, it would
> need to be done c
Hi all,
I tried to upload the kernel debs to ftp.debian-ports.org, but I'm
getting some upload errors, so I uploaded them to
http://www.freevec.org/packages/
the armhf sd card image is finally uploaded here:
http://www.freevec.org/packages/efikamx-armhf.img.xz
it is very recent, includes pbuil
On 30 March 2011 01:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the license. You don't
> have to change a package name to "plainly mark" the source as modified;
> debian/copyright, changelogs, notices in the source files accomplish this.
> This is done for packag
On 29 March 2011 10:53, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Konstantinos,
> There must be some misunderstanding here; no license that prohibited
> distribution of binaries built from modified source would be considered a
> Free Software license, and zlib is certainly considered free. :)
Yes, you're right
On 28 March 2011 07:52, Jim Huang wrote:
> - zlib
> Using SIMD, we can optimize 'copy / repeat an existing sequence' in
> LZ-style encoding.
> The reference Intel SSE2 optimization patch is attached in this mail.
Regarding zlib in particular, in 2005 I had done an altivec port of this,
apart fr
(repost from debian-arm list)
Hi everyone,
As a follow-up event to http://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/2011/EmdebianSprint
Genesi is also organizing an event in San Antonio. Details about the event
can be found here:
http://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/2011/GenesiSprintSanAntonio
We would like all interes
On 22 December 2010 21:22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Having accommodations in the kernel for proprietary drivers is not a
> mutual benefit anymore. That might be hard to understand from your
> point of view, but the incentives in the Open Source communities aren't
> based on commercial results.
DIS
On 22 December 2010 20:39, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski
wrote:
>> So to say that the corporate world might need to consider Open Source to
>> be competitive and survive, but the reverse is not true i.e. Open Source
>> doesn't _require_ the corporate world to survive.
>
> i agree with it fully, and to
On 22 December 2010 09:51, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Okay I hereby refrain from legal comments.
>
> In any case, this code has passed legal at Freescale and AMD *AND*
> Qualcomm. It would not be GPL if it has not been vetted (and it took
> them a year to get to this point).
It appears that this discus
On 7 December 2010 18:35, Paul Brook wrote:
>> In essence, I would like to express my objection in having the same triplet
>> for both softfp and hard ABIs. I know upstream (ARM) objects, but IMHO they
>> just haven't done the extensive compiling I have and didn't consider the
>> problems (I doubt
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 16:02:16 Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am patching machines to support armhf, which it is almost at 90%
> built. I know you are very busy with squeeze release, but could you
> give a comment if the patch is wrong or right, as we are using it for
> patching machine
18 matches
Mail list logo
