3 ms·
You can look at Debian's reasoning here: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort. As I understand, the decision was mo
by sanxiyn 1y ago
You can look at Debian's reasoning here: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort. As I understand, the decision was mostly based on hardware.
- stingraycharles 1y agoI just read it, seems like an unfortunate chain of events. They tried to look forward a little bit by looking at the current generation of hardware that’s out there, and didn’t anticipate an older chip to become that massively popular.
- saurik 1y agoI might be missing it, but, after going through that entire page, the only things I am seeing that are relevant are the following four sentences, and none of them provide a rationale? > Currently the Debian armhf port requires at least an Armv7 CPU with Thumb-2 and VFP3D16. > It might make sense for such a new port -- which would essentially target newer hardware -- to target newer CPUs. For instance, it could target Armv6 or Armv7 SoCs, and VFPv2, VFPv3-D16 or NEON. > In practice armel will be used for older CPUs (armv4t, armv5, armv6), and armhf for newer CPUs (armv7+VFP). > Some concern for fast-enough, pretty awesome (600MHz+) Armv6 + VFPv2 processors here - i.MX37 etc. - which will not be supported by armhf default flavour, but.. we will have to live with that