Joachim Breitner wrote:
Erik, can you comment on that?
Well, I agree that not being able to build GHC on `armel` is a regression with respect to 7.10.2, but in my opinion, GHC 7.10.2 was not actually usable on Arm, at least not on `armhf` (not sure about `armel` as I don't have an `armel` setup). Currently, GHC treats all 32 bit Arm systems as the same. I think this shows that we need at least the equivalent of Debian's `armhf` (which is what we currently have) and Debian's `armel`. I'm not even too sure what `armel` actually is. Is it Armv4 with softfloat? Is so, I can probably create a chroot on one of my fast `armhf` boards. The main problem is that Arm needs more developer man power. For the last several months my employer has allowed me to allocate some of my work hours to improve GHC on Arm and Arm64. That however is about to come to an end and at the moment I seem to be the only person working on Arm. That work is also made more difficult by the fact that changes in the master branch seem to break Arm (and/or PowerPC) every 2-3 weeks. Sometimes just fixing new breakage in master takes up all the time I have. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/