On 29 avr. 2015, at 00:31, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote:
> I've seen this topic addressed in the archives, and don't want to restart any > of the arguments about how useful/relevant CFarm has become. > From my point of view "beggars can't be choosers" and so this email is just > my observations and a few questions and NOT any sort of complaint. > > As others have observed, the gcc-cfarm systems that are currently usable are > almost exclusively x86-64/Linux. > There are certainly notable exceptions, such as > + The POWER7 and POWER8 systems donated by IBM (thanks guys!). > + AIX and NetBSD on gcc111 and gcc70, respectively > + The VMs on gcc76 > > Since most of us probably use Linux or OSX on x86-64 every day, this is not > "diverse" for some of us (though I know our definitions of "diverse" will > differ). > So, I want to ask: > > 1) Is there any effort (current or planned for the near-future) to revive any > of the IA64, ARM, MIPS or SPARC systems? > > 2) Is there any desire from users to see QEMU-emulated ARM, MIPS or SPARC > within cfarm if the real h/w is non-recoverable? This brings the question of "what is cfarm used for". QEMU can only "emulate" so much, and in some specific cases, nothing can replace actual hardware testing. The behavior of some platforms, and more precisely some flavors of said platforms, can be "surprising" when compared to its QEMU counterpart under specific loads. My 2c. T. _______________________________________________ Gcc-cfarm-users mailing list Gcc-cfarm-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gcc-cfarm-users
