From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Thu Nov 19 21:46:52 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2B1A332DF; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 21:46:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from superbisquit@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yk0-x244.google.com (mail-yk0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4151584; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 21:46:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from superbisquit@gmail.com) Received: by ykay124 with SMTP id y124so10460745yka.1; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:46:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SSJr9N6hq7Yewpo2UKh8aO11czqq6LSHUQ7o/OcIcJQ=; b=My6fObmneB46Jc5JgvmvwwVEMrDqFZyewjj0Cws6sUUua3uOW1n8LXLQE6dUfHsRWb Vsrf+zwkXU97oCHnvhcganoc5HQwGaQQmiMrK6iz8GTVLlbDAZzDYjbsjHEjy+twLxSS qeBuxON0fPGDwwPW0INfKR3m90nwxKeYsc3UilzzHtTpkNWgUvMZtsgVgGIOssFxtjVo EsJHDACXy/S0t1dxuApMEWTCy1RIKFGeteBj5R01vNMW2kFNoSHJL79DWqnROvZnM8Ix xqHyXBndnqNznTit0volF/cLXr+NetVcqrkeRHDljUwvIE2QaoU77rLtiTevpZ2FQ8zK CjqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.53.132 with SMTP id c126mr9276369ywa.108.1447969610779; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:46:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.103.9.195 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:46:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151117092703.GA30582@lonesome.com> References: <56417100.5050600@Wilcox-Tech.com> <39947478-4710-47D8-BAB1-FC93979570B6@mail.turbofuzz.com> <5646D19C.9010304@interlinked.me> <564A889C.9070209@mu.org> <564ACCB3.4070603@mu.org> <20151117092703.GA30582@lonesome.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:46:50 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Sparc64 doesn't care about you, and you shouldn't care about Sparc64 From: Joe Nosay To: Mark Linimon Cc: Warner Losh , Anna Wilcox , freebsd-arch , Alfred Perlstein , Marius Strobl , Sean Bruno , "sparc64@freebsd.org" , Jordan Hubbard , Elizabeth Myers X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:45:33 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 21:46:52 -0000 Is it possible to have the instruction sets moved from one architecture to another? Would this require more registers? Since there are Open Architectures, it should be possible to create a CPU with shared instruction sets. On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:06:35AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > We don=E2=80=99t have a =E2=80=9Cking of the kernel=E2=80=9D or =E2=80= =9Cking of mips=E2=80=9D or anything > > like that. We document that you send mail to mips@ when you don=E2=80= =99t > > know the right person to send. > > And I don't see why we should. What would we gain from this administrati= ve > overhead? > > What we lose is: dealing with people who have the title not doing work, > or people not having the title, doing the work, being irritated by not > having the title. > > svn can, with a little effort, demonstrate who is looking after what. > > All I see is cost and no benefit. This isn't an "org chart" kind of > issue IMHO. > > In FreeBSD, why delegate responsibility to anyone other than those who > take it by their own initiative? > > mcl > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-sparc64 > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-sparc64-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " >