Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:45:05 +0000 From: Minsoo Choo <minsoochoo0122@proton.me> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16 Message-ID: <ioNyRWJrBfjQetnvQQZDrd7PuRbSBvmSqNZF6YSaWg7jgBMMtGOeDNPqTuJESTl9wxJDyFfEOcvgvEBHueZodcvi2qQXshCdkDZSfiz9g9M=@proton.me> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfrQthqYeGYD_9LRcH94JJZuF2%2BUxAqf7Lcoe6p5VzJf9g@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Monday, November 17th, 2025 at 11:58 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As we're getting close to the release date for FreeBSD 15.0, it's time to take stock of another architectures. This time, I'd like your feedback on the following plans.
>
> We'd like to retire powerpc64 and powerpc64le just before the FreeBSD stable/16 branch.
>
> This would give powerpc64 another two years of support in main, followed by sustaining support on stable/14 and stable/15 until the end of those branches.
>
> We've come to this point because the port is dwindling and we have a cost associated with keeping it around. The number of developers has fallen off so only a couple remain. Issues in powerpc are taking longer and longer to discover and resolve. The hardware has been a huge source of frustration for clusteradmin and we've no alternative for developers. There's only a tiny user base. We have trouble building packages for it. Also, powerpc has a number of interesting features of the architecture that make it the odd arch out.
>
> It's also big endian. While that may seem like a reason to keep it around, if we really can't support it and we're not actively testing functionality of the system, then keeping this around actually doesn't help keep us honest. It just gives us a burden we must bear.
>
> In my opinion, powerpc64 appears to have already fallen below critical mass, despite being a sentimental favorite for a number of FreeBSD developers. As such, I'd like us to consider planning to retire it before we branch 16.
>
> My questions today: Are you using this port? How many people are using it? And what's the installed base? It appears to be somewhat less than that of either i386 or armv7 based on user surveys and popularity at conferences. Also, any other comments you might have.
>
> Warner
I've been working on LLDB for several weeks now. One thing I learned: we should never expect improvement in ppc64be support for LLVM (at least in LLDB). ppc64be POSIX userland debugging on LLDB is incomplete—it's missing files that even riscv and loongarch implement and VSX registers are completely absent in some cases while ppc64le debugging is still actively developed and maintained. Debugging is one of the most crucial component in software development while LLVM is FreeBSD's default toolchain. In this context, I don't see any reason to keep support ppc64be. I was going to implement LLDB userland and kernel debugging support for all supported architectures from FreeBSD 14, but after I examined the current status of ppc64be in LLDB, I decided to abandon it.
And this is industry trend. The only ppc manufacturer for POSIX platforms, IBM, has been moving away from ppc64be. Major Linux distros, including developed by IBM subsidiary RedHat, only offer ppc64le binaries (RedHat and clones, CentOS, Fedora, SUSE, etc). Many drivers assume that the host is running on little-endian, so those drivers fail to work on big-endian systems. ppc64be is poorly maintained and tested across many OSes and I don't see why we should continue supporting it when there is no benefit.
--
Minsoo
>
[-- Attachment #2 --]
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">On Monday, November 17th, 2025 at 11:58 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:</span><br><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">
</span><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">
</span><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">Greetings,</span><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">As we're getting close to the release date for FreeBSD 15.0, it's time to take stock of another architectures. This time, I'd like your feedback on the following plans.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">We'd like to retire powerpc64 and powerpc64le just before the FreeBSD stable/16 branch.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">This would give powerpc64 another two years of support in main, followed by sustaining support on stable/14 and stable/15 until the end of those branches.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">We've come to this point because the port is dwindling and we have a cost associated with keeping it around. The number of developers has fallen off so only a couple remain. Issues in powerpc are taking longer and longer to discover and resolve. The hardware has been a huge source of frustration for clusteradmin and we've no alternative for developers. There's only a tiny user base. We have trouble building packages for it. Also, powerpc has a number of interesting features of the architecture that make it the odd arch out.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">It's also big endian. While that may seem like a reason to keep it around, if we really can't support it and we're not actively testing functionality of the system, then keeping this around actually doesn't help keep us honest. It just gives us a burden we must bear.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">In my opinion, powerpc64 appears to have already fallen below critical mass, despite being a sentimental favorite for a number of FreeBSD developers. As such, I'd like us to consider planning to retire it before we branch 16.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">My questions today: Are you using this port? How many people are using it? And what's the installed base? It appears to be somewhat less than that of either i386 or armv7 based on user surveys and popularity at conferences. Also, any other comments you might have.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-weight: 400;">Warner</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I've been working on LLDB for several weeks now. One thing I learned: we should never expect improvement in ppc64be support for LLVM (at least in LLDB). ppc64be POSIX userland debugging on LLDB is incomplete—it's missing files that even riscv and loongarch implement and VSX registers are completely absent in some cases while ppc64le debugging is still actively developed and maintained. Debugging is one of the most crucial component in software development while LLVM is FreeBSD's default toolchain. In this context, I don't see any reason to keep support ppc64be. I was going to implement LLDB userland and kernel debugging support for all supported architectures from FreeBSD 14, but after I examined the current status of ppc64be in LLDB, I decided to abandon it.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">And this is industry trend. The only ppc manufacturer for POSIX platforms, IBM, has been moving away from ppc64be. Major Linux distros, including developed by IBM subsidiary RedHat, only offer ppc64le binaries (RedHat and clones, CentOS, Fedora, SUSE, etc). Many drivers assume that the host is running on little-endian, so those drivers fail to work on big-endian systems. ppc64be is poorly maintained and tested across many OSes and I don't see why we should continue supporting it when there is no benefit.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">--</div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Minsoo</div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
</blockquote>
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ioNyRWJrBfjQetnvQQZDrd7PuRbSBvmSqNZF6YSaWg7jgBMMtGOeDNPqTuJESTl9wxJDyFfEOcvgvEBHueZodcvi2qQXshCdkDZSfiz9g9M=>