On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 12:50 -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 03/02/2011 07:31 AM, omalleys@xxxxxxx wrote: > > Is there a way to strip out What one you aren't using? IE i don't have > > an fpu, therefore I want to strip out the hardfpu code for a smaller > > binary. > > Just to clarify, this script and its resulting binaries are to assist > bootstrapping armv7l. I don't think anybody is considering it for > anything beyond a one time rebuild of all the packages. > > > What vfpu are the target? I thought the main reason why we didn't want > > hard fpu's was because of the differences, between them. Number of > > registers varied, etc. You can't really optimize for each of them and > > have any sanity. > > This does bring up an interesting point- right now the flag difference > is simply '-mfloat-abi=hard'. Is this the right flag for all armv7 > concerns? I need to look closely at this, we'll need a 16-register VFP configuration for maximum compatibility. > > If I have to run a script that changes the objects in the binaries, it > > screws up checksums and can cause all sorts of issues. > > It would definitely alter checksums. What other issues do you foresee? The overall plan here is to try to short-circuit the armv7hl bootstrap by: - do a global rebuild of the packages as fat binaries - flip all the switches to produce armv7hl versions (take apart the RPMs, flip the switches, put the RPMs back together) - do a global rebuild of the packages as optimized armv7hl versions ...instead of doing an ordered build from the ground up (similar in scope to supporting a new arch because of the complete ABI break, and a much longer process than the double-rebuild). There are numerous challenges with this approach, but I think it's worth a thorough investigation. -- Chris _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
