Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:23:37 +0200 From: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de> To: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com> Cc: Daniel Kolesa <daniel@...aforge.org>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org, eery@...erfox.es, musl@...ts.openwall.com, Will Springer <skirmisher@...tonmail.com>, Palmer Dabbelt via binutils <binutils@...rceware.org>, via libc-dev <libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:40:23PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > not be limited to being just userspace under ppc64le, but should be > > runnable on a native kernel as well, which should not be limited to any > > particular baseline other than just PowerPC. > > This is a fairly unusual approach to bringing up a new ABI. Since new > ABIs are more likely to be used on new systems rather than switching ABI > on an existing installation, and since it can take quite some time for all > the software support for a new ABI to become widely available in > distributions, people developing new ABIs are likely to think about what > new systems are going to be relevant in a few years' time when working out > the minimum hardware requirements for the new ABI. (The POWER8 minimum > for powerpc64le fits in with that, for example.) That means that you cannot run ppc64le on FSL embedded CPUs (which lack the vector instructions in LE mode). Which may be fine with you but other people may want to support these. Can't really say if that's good idea or not but I don't foresee them going away in a few years, either. Thanks Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.