Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 03/09/2018 05:31 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > Note that SH glibc test results need some work - there are a large number > > of failures listed at . > > Probably most could be addressed wi

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On 03/09/2018 05:31 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > Note that SH glibc test results need some work - there are a large number > of failures listed at . > Probably most could be addressed with the NaN fixes I outlined at >

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > I have personally invested a lot of work into the SH port over the > past three years in Debian and I was involved fixing many bugs > and as a result, the port is quite usable. It would be really > disappointing to see it being removed all of

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:55:33 PST (-0800), Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> - riscv32 is not yet supported by Linux or glibc, but that seems >> very likely to come in the future, maybe one or two years from >> now. > > > I'm hoping it'll be a lo

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:55:33 PST (-0800), Arnd Bergmann wrote: - riscv32 is not yet supported by Linux or glibc, but that seems very likely to come in the future, maybe one or two years from now. I'm hoping it'll be a lot less than a year away :).

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 5:06 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 03/08/2018 04:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> I originally helped get tile, blackfin, metag, unicore32 and score into >> the kernel, and it's always sad to see them go away after all the work >> that was put into making them w

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On 03/08/2018 04:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: I originally helped get tile, blackfin, metag, unicore32 and score into the kernel, and it's always sad to see them go away after all the work that was put into making them work. Out of the above, tile was probably the best supported, and the most ambi

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 04:39:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> - Helmut Grohne has done the work to add tile-gx to debian >>rebootstrap, and send several patches, as seen in >>https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823167

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 04:39:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > - Helmut Grohne has done the work to add tile-gx to debian >rebootstrap, and send several patches, as seen in >https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823167 >However, I could find no information on this actually

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On 03/07/2018 05:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: No-one has posted glibc test results for 2.27 or 2.26, despite the prior claims of interest in keeping the glibc port. To be honest, I find the rapid release model for glibc a bit annoying as a downstream. Upstream projects which adopt this model and

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Do you have any updates on this? A related question has come up > for the kernel, as are in the process of removing a number of architectures, > https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/748074/119aaf0d62b3e6c1/ or > see https://lwn.net/Articles/748074/ for a nice s

Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 4:16 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 12/02/2017 02:14 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote: > >> I'd be very happy if someone from Debian (for example) wants to sign >> up as maintainer. Otherwise I will follow the sense of the community >> in terms of whether deletion or just