From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F894139083 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D3962E0DBE; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82E7CE0C39 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.51] (85.253.86.194.cable.starman.ee [85.253.86.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leio) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B51D33BEAC for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:14:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1513520087.1654.3.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] cross compiling arm with 17 profiles. From: Mart Raudsepp To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:14:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <46280df3-c0d6-dad5-2e29-bbe5d70ee22e@iinet.net.au> References: <46280df3-c0d6-dad5-2e29-bbe5d70ee22e@iinet.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 883aebd1-da02-4390-91d8-0473e8c3f881 X-Archives-Hash: c283cb4b86089cfae33aaf8d330f84cd On P, 2017-12-17 at 16:50 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote: > Something I cant figure out: > > ARM is still on the 13 profiles - should an amd64 system used to > cross > compile for arm (Raspberry Pi's) be left on the 13 profiles or 17 > will > work fine? ARM profiles are delayed to potentially fix CHOSTs together with the profile update. Though no-one is actively doing the work to my knowledge right now. I guess it could cause trouble from default PIE vs no PIE from native compiler, but I don't know enough about that field to know for sure. If you pay attention to any future CHOST changes and handle them yourself at the right time, you could manually choose the appropriate 17.0 arm profile as your symlink (it doesn't show up in eselect profile due to no profiles.desc entry, but should be there in profiles/). If changes are done, you might be caught a bit off-guard though at the time they are done though and I'm not sure what the effects of that would be either (probably not too bad).