Armhf dynamic linker path
riku.voipio at linaro.org
Thu Apr 5 09:06:43 UTC 2012
On 5 April 2012 04:18, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
>> The choice of using multiarch path for armhf linker path was agreed
>> mostly because 1) people agreed that having the possibility of armhf
>> and armel binaries on the same systems is useful and 2) nobody
>> proposed anything else.
> i don't see value in having multiple endians being active simultaneously. it
> might make for a fun exercise, but people won't deploy systems with them both
> installed. after all, the kernel isn't bi-endian on the fly.
Sorry for being ambigous. With "armel" I mean arm eabi with softfloat
abi. What people agreed was useful was supporting those binaries along
with eabi hardfloat binaries "armhf". Both are in this case
little-endian. I'm not aware of anyone interested in different endian
binaries on same systems.
More information about the linaro-toolchain