Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:44:53 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: SF Bay area hackfest Message-ID: <20040325014453.GA65919@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <p06020471bc87dc86ec54@[128.113.24.47]> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0403241221540.63489-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <p06020471bc87dc86ec54@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:56:15PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 12:22 PM -0800 3/24/04, Julian Elischer wrote: > >On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > >> > > > Uh, what about basic functionalty on Sparc64 and Alpha? > > > >who cares? > > I want the platform to be taken seriously. It is going to be a > major challenge to the FreeBSD project to have multiple "tier 1" > platforms, and it isn't good to hear a cavalier "Who Cares?" so > early in handling that challenge. > I'm not so sure that Julian was being cavalier. After watching Julian, Dan, and David repeatedly ask for a sparc64 (and alpha) person to help implement KSE, I suspect Julian was really asking "Who cares enough about sparc64 to help implement the missing pieces to get TLS moving forward?" >From where I sit on the side lines, this looks like a catch-22. David doesn't want to spend the time and effort to upgrade binutils without the commitment of implementing TLS on all tier-1 platforms. Julian and Dan don't want to make that commitment to all platforms until they had the opportunity to implement it on at least i386, which can't be done with a new toolchain. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040325014453.GA65919>