[fedora-arm] armv7hl requirements

[Peter Robinson]

Hi Jon,

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Jon Masters <jonathan at jonmasters.org> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> 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.

What's the possible issues and impact of building the F-15 build chain
on F-13 vs building on a F-14 toolchain like mainline F-15 on x86
would have been?

> Once I get some feedback, I'll be updating the wiki, along with some
> more F-15 goals and (hopefully) generally useful stuff.

Thanks for kicking off this conversation. Its been something discussed
on irc and other channels.

I would like, if its possible, to get to a reasonable decision ASAP so
its possible to get what ever changes  are necessary into dist-f15
final (simply so we follow F-15 release as close as possible) for the
rehat-rpm-config or what ever packages are needed to compile and
support the HW platform including things like what ever the rpm naming
ends up being.

Peter