This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Move powerpc ports pieces to libc.
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: <munroesj at us dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:54:24 +0000
- Subject: Re: Move powerpc ports pieces to libc.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309261728050 dot 13950 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <52458373 dot 4030301 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309271531060 dot 7561 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <1380568093 dot 4899 dot 55 dot camel at spokane1 dot rchland dot ibm dot com>
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Steven Munroe wrote:
> > Really the existing multi-arch support doesn't do a good job of optimizing
> > for cases where only a subset of the multi-arch implementations are
> > relevant. If glibc is being built for a general-purpose GNU/Linux
> > distribution, then you might want binaries with a wide range of
> > architecture variant support (including both the POWER and 4xx functions
> > in the Power Architecture case, for example).
> If you are suggesting that we would have a single distro spanning lowest
> 32-bit embedded 4xx to top of the top of the line 795 256-core Power7+,
> I don't think that is a reasonable assumptions.
As far as I can tell Debian only has a single official powerpc port,
supporting a wide range of hardware, for example. It's not the only use
case, but it is one case - hence it being useful to have the possibility
of controlling the subset of multi-arch implementations built depending on
what your particular use case is.
Joseph S. Myers