On Wednesday 04 April 2012 22:48:34 Wookey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger [2012-04-02 19:56 -0400]:
> > >>> i agree that the ldso needs changing to something unique so everyone
> > >>> can start off on the same page with a sane path. i don't think
> > >>> forcing everyone into the multi-arch stuff that d
+++ Mike Frysinger [2012-04-02 19:56 -0400]:
> >>> i agree that the ldso needs changing to something unique so everyone
> >>> can start off on the same page with a sane path. i don't think
> >>> forcing everyone into the multi-arch stuff that debian is deploying
> >>> makes sense though. this see
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 21:31:20 dann frazier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:18:13PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
> > > On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > >>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:18:13PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >> yes, this was brought up at Linaro Connect as well; having the lds
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> yes, this was brought up at Linaro Connect as well; having the ldso name
> >> in a multiarch location doesn't mean that anything else need
Continued work on neon 64-bit correctness. This is really dragging out
now. I had hoped to have had it fixed by now, but subtle bugs are subtle.
The 16-bit opcodes patch is now committed both upstream and in Linaro
GCC 4.7, however, so that's some progress at least.
Posted benchmark results f
