I haven't looked at the armhfp bits, no. We'll likely try to make a bigger push for this sort of thing around the 7.3 timeframe to line it all up. We'll see how that works. On 08/20/2016 08:08 AM, Ed Brand wrote: > Awesome, i just updated to it. Many thanks. > > Any one looking at the armhfp branch for consistency? If you need help > I can do the same for it. Let me know, don't want to duplicate any > efforts..all i ask is some kudos in the changelog ;) > > > > On 08/09/2016 11:15 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: >> Just as a follow-up on this, I'm cycling through the build for it now >> and you should see this pushed as an update in the next day or so. >> >> On 07/31/2016 06:16 PM, Ed Brand wrote: >>> SUCCESS!!! >>> >>> What a PITA. I did hit the glibc artifact issue, ended up building a >>> complete cross-compiled gcc-4.9 toolchain for Centos7 x86_64. gcc-4.8 is >>> just not happy being cross-compiled. >>> >>> I did a write up and uploaded everything to the below link if you want >>> to give it a go, or repeat for arm32 port. Basically followed the f21 >>> stage 1 port docs to get it bootstrapped. I would like to see this in >>> the main distro. Do you need a bug filed? >>> >>> http://arm.brandint.com/centos7/aarch64/bootstrap/Centos7-AARCH64-CrossCompiler.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> -Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/28/2016 08:38 PM, Jim Perrin wrote: >>>> On 07/28/2016 04:17 PM, Ed Brand wrote: >>>>> Libatomic and libgnat from gcc-4.8.5-4 appear not to be built on >>>>> aarch64. How to file bug? See below from spec: >>>>> >>>> Bugs can be filed at bugs.centos.org >>>> >>>>> Summary: Various compilers (C, C++, Objective-C, Java, ...) >>>>> Name: gcc >>>>> %if 0%{?rhel} == 7 >>>>> %global gcc_version 4.8.2 >>>>> %else >>>>> %global gcc_version 4.8.5 >>>>> %endif >>>>> Version: 4.8.5 >>>>> Release: %{gcc_release}%{?dist} >>>>> ... >>>>> ( Missing aarch64 ) >>>>> v >>>>> %ifarch %{ix86} x86_64 ppc ppc64 ppc64le ppc64p7 s390 s390x aarch64 >>>>> %{arm} >>>>> %global build_libatomic 1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I did a smoke test and was able to bootstrap both using f21 aarch64. >>>>> Have the rpms if needed. >>>> Some of the gcc bits I had patched out of the initial gcc build, >>>> because >>>> of the lack of early support and/or bootstrap pain (primarily ada and >>>> related bits). >>>> >>>> Unfortunately building against f21 can potentially cause issues with >>>> gcc/glibc artifacts because of the newer glibc/gcc included in fedora. >>>> >>>> When we did the initial port/build for this, we had to start from f19 >>>> aarch64 builds and work up from there because of this. If you can >>>> (re)build against the el7 aarch64 build, that will give you a better >>>> result. I'll poke it tomorrow. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Arm-dev mailing list >>> Arm-dev at centos.org >>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Arm-dev mailing list > Arm-dev at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77