Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

[Ludovic Courtès]

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:

> I don't think we need a 'system' for every combination of flags.  We
> should just find a small number of "sweet spots" in the tradeoff between
> minimum requirements vs performance.  IMO, for 32-bit ARM, two systems
> should be enough: armhf, and maybe another one (armel?) that works on
> lower-end processors.

It’s not even clear that “hf” needs to be part of the system name.

In theory, the bootstrap tarballs could be soft-float, which means they
would run everywhere, and from there users could choose what
--with-float and --with-fpu flags to use.

OTOH, changing the system name makes it much easier to refer to a
specific variant.

Ludo’.