Plan for changing the binary toolchain to 4.7 and hardfloat

Andrew Stubbs andrew.stubbs at
Mon Mar 19 12:42:47 UTC 2012

On 19/03/12 08:48, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:27:17 +0000 Mans
> Rullgard<mans.rullgard at>  wrote:
>> FWIW, Gentoo has been using arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi for
>> hardfloat configurations ever since gcc started supporting it.
>> That's of course not a triplet, strictly speaking.
> Also fwiw, I have been assured from Gentoo developers that they will
> change their triplet to arm-linux-gnueabihf as soon as upstream
> adopts it.

Upstream's position has been that what Gentoo was doing is the preferred 
solution, or even have no change to the triplet at all. In both cases, 
software that cares should use a configure script to detect the ABI 
(most won't care: compilers are good like that).

Of course, in the real world it turns out that having a unique 
identifier that everyone agrees on is a good thing too, so I understand 
the distros' decision to create a defacto standard, but I don't know if 
it will go upstream as such.

> I find the situation sad as well, since Linaro has been pushing for
> this triplet (at least the OCTO team and me personally for more than
> a year), and not having full support from within Linaro with regards
> to this matter is quite depressing. And I have to say, especially one
> of the arguments (Windows storage issue) should be irrelevant for a
> Linux problem.

I think the "correct" solution to this would be to have the binary 
toolchain built in a multilib configuration that supports both softfp 
and hardfp, and provide aliases for both triplets that configure the 
right setting, but that requires more build, test, and install effort 
and trickery, and it's not clear how much benefit there would be.

I don't really understand why the compiler name can't just be changed to 
match the ABI change though?


More information about the linaro-dev mailing list