From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5642 invoked by alias); 23 May 2012 21:12:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 5624 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2012 21:12:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 21:12:15 +0000 Received: by wgbdr1 with SMTP id dr1so6131521wgb.12 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=TjpPuAikShYS4qH8YORsel4GwBzHn78x8YO3KCtajlc=; b=UXzSSq1hwkrldWep45tADdERWvU9QJfkO9UYWgLi3G9oqsxUt6rMBoHUxIxwk97vyc BUeYwLKJksKhVxAzUzNxRCQyqGfN5tB+lIras31gpcFM5phJ2O1QotiiDa3fHR4SjcKD 5Uby9xWwHi60X18hi6p4zHHEaiMJSNLK39hbwNPhrd8m8GXu8xmJjDxkX/9Z6U/39Dfh inAANtpE40avM0Cf0phy2PMduFe/1icI+OzBpfTjdFYLmNot3OTZwPBIKuW7YGSraD6o 3vz2wg5Etx6XIeiS/JUDA41dx47sD0PoEJn5CtU9Mn6Xodkuec/PyajM7g9y4reeXVvF f4Mw== Received: by 10.180.78.105 with SMTP id a9mr35159573wix.14.1337807534311; Wed, 23 May 2012 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.87.225 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 14:11:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201205231016.29997.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <201205231001.17818.aj@suse.com> <201205231016.29997.vapier@gentoo.org> From: Michael Hope Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 21:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: Use different linker path for hardfloat ABI To: Mike Frysinger Cc: libc-ports@sourceware.org, cross-distro@lists.linaro.org, Richard Guenther , Richard Earnshaw , "Carlos O'Donell" , GCC Patches , Andreas Jaeger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmGzkTi+k3bqft22C/ySJmwtkvafo5Ew6sjF9I1RrRcvU0DYrfpgoAcaA6/bxET2ogsGD1S X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00143.txt.bz2 On 24 May 2012 02:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 23 May 2012 04:17:51 Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Wed, 23 May 2012, Andreas Jaeger wrote: >> > On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 09:56:31 Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> > > [...] >> > > This is a behaviour change. =A0It would need RM approval for a relea= se >> > > branch. >> > > >> > > R. >> > >> > There was agreement by all pushing for the change to use it. So, let's >> > ask the release managers about their opinion, >> >> I'm ok with the change - but of course only to carry one less patch >> in our local tree. =A0What do others think? =A0It would definitely (anyw= ay) >> need documenting in changes.html (for both 4.7.1 and 4.8). > > i've done this for Gentoo and 4.5.0+, so if all the distros are going to = be > doing this in 4.7.x anyways, makes sense to me to do it in the official b= ranch. Agreed. Google have done it for their 4.6, Fedora have done it for 4.7 (?), and we've done it for Linaro GCC 4.6 and 4.7. My concern is that a point release of GCC would stop working against the latest release of GLIBC. I'm happy to prepare a backport to GCC 4.6, GCC 4.7, and GLIBC 2.15 so the next set of point releases will all work with each other. This would match what the distros are doing. -- Michael