On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 09:22:33AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 07:56:02AM +0530, Mukesh Kumar Chaurasiya wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 08:11:17PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 8:07 PM Link Mauve <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Should we come back to describing the target like I did in my first > > > > patch[1] in scripts/generate_rust_target.rs, or should I bring that to > > > > Rust to create a powerpc-unknown-unknown-softfloat target upstream? Or > > > > is there a better third solution I’m not thinking of? > > > > > > We are trying to stop using the custom target specs, so we should ask > > > upstream to give you a built-in target you can use (or equivalently, a > > > flag to do what you need, but I think the idea is to not have such a > > > flag). > > > > > > i.e. even if you used the custom target JSON, we would still need to > > > ask, since the goal is to remove that script entirely. > > > > I think, disabling altivec, fpu and vsx with compiler flag will work. > > > > What are your opinion on this? > > I think you can and should submit a PR to add a softfloat target to > upstream Rust right now, and I believe there should be no issue in > accepting that. > > If there's a workaround we can use on existing compiler versions without > the target, that's great too, but we should get the target in upstream > asap. Cool, sounds good.
Regards, Mukesh > > Alice
