Hans de Goede wrote:
The question is can we make things generic and still set off reasonably
optimal code for a wide range of arm systems. I'm not asking for the
last 5-10%, but we should be able to get atleast upto 90% with regards
to code-size, but also speed of a custom build toolchain for a specific
target if our generic libc becomes much much larger then a special one,
and cannot be modularized then I'm afraid that having a generic
toolchain isn't much good as lots of arm usage is embedded and size
often matters there.
Any arm-linux-gnu{,eabi} toolchain is going to support a pretty wide
range of arm systems, but not be optimal for any of them. That's not
too big a deal if your tools provide a wide range of multilibs and you
are willing to set the right optimization flags. It may be worth having
a wide range of libc versions (Like ia32 Fedora being "i386", but having
some i686 packages where it counts).
You can also get arm-linux-gnueabi tools from here:
ftp://ftp.ges.redhat.com/private/releng/arm-linux-beta
Like Lennert's tools, these are EABI, but completely self contained in a
single source rpm. Making ABI tools is a one line change in the spec file.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@xxxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
