On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM, <omalleys(a)msu.edu> wrote:
Quoting Gordan Bobic <gordan(a)bobich.net>:
> Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 04 2011, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>> I'd like to kick off a discussion about flags for ARMv7. My proposal
>>>> here is that we treat v7hl as an entirely different architecture, and
>>>> don't try any multi-arch kind of hacks (there isn't the
established user
>>>> base for Fedora ARM to justify doing any of those things at the moment).
>>>>
>>>> Things I think we should consider as a minimum:
>>>>
>>>> *). Little endian (obviously, but worth stating) (l)
>>>> *). Cortex-A8 or higher fully compliant core(s)
>>>> *). ARM VFP3 hardware floating point (h)
>>>> *). ARM NEON Architecture
>>>> *). Thumb2 interworking
>>>> *). Your suggestion here?
>>>>
>>>> I think we should build for ARM (as opposed to Thumb2) but we should
>>>> support interworking with Thumb2 code through the toolchain options. We
>>>> should then later consider implementing some Thumb2 optimization.
It's
>>>> more armv7thl, but the (t) is implied since it's ARMv7 anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Several folks have begun looking at toolchain bringup based on the F-15
>>>> toolchain applied to an F-13 userspace initially. But I'd like us to
>>>> discuss options/requirements for toolchains before we go too far.
>>>>
>>>> Once I get some feedback, I'll be updating the wiki, along with some
>>>> more F-15 goals and (hopefully) generally useful stuff.
>>> Just for the record, this sounds great from OLPC's perspective; +1.
>>> (I expect we'd rather build for Thumb2, even if only for the size
>>> benefit.)
>>
>> ive started building some f15 rpms with hardfp
>>
>> i set in redhat-rpm-config
>> -march=armv7-a -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mfloat-abi=hard -mthumb
>>
>> im using meego as a base to bootstrap, we will need to build a couple of
>> times to get everything bootstrapped right with the full set of flags.
>> meego dropped some things like selinux. im slowly making some progress. i
>> want to get to having a fedora minimal buildroot by the end the week.
>> though that might be a bit hard since gcc will take some time to compile.
>
> Does that mean we are skipping F14 alltogether? I'm not against the
> idea, just curious. Anything that helps close the gap to primary distros
> is a good thing. :)
I don't think armv5 is skipping f14.
No definitely not skipping armv5 F-14. I'm working on it but having a
few issues. All help and assistance appreciated.
It is probably a good idea to skip F14 for armv7 though and start
off
at least in the general ballpark of the mainline distro.
The armv7+hardfp would be hard for F-14 as it would need a lot of
patches to gcc etc. armv7+soft as we have now probably won't provide
massive improvements. Ultimately I think we'll end up with a arm5tel
for maximum hardware support as we have now, and then a arm7hl (plus
possibly thumb) for best performance on armv7 platforms.
The rpm tweaks need to make it upstream though. :)
Correct, and it would be good to get this into there soon assuming the
above settings are what we all agree upon for v7 + hardfp for F-15.
Peter