Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 20:53:48 +0300 From: Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Minsoo Choo <minsoochoo0122@proton.me>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16 Message-ID: <20251130205348.2360a54c@nuclight.lan> In-Reply-To: <202511261707.5AQH7N1u016543@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <CANCZdfrQthqYeGYD_9LRcH94JJZuF2%2BUxAqf7Lcoe6p5VzJf9g@mail.gmail.com> <NqfDArT7jTPoIyfcShDccomNhLR9YUp1_S6kjK_NKIaiQVy2QK4n2KdbZIKm9gqda9fLP62MYQA-N5KOkECydNd1ktiUUuepzOVwCX8thgY=@proton.me> <202511261707.5AQH7N1u016543@critter.freebsd.dk>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 17:07:23 +0000 "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > Minsoo Choo writes: > > > After reading replies, I still have questions why we should keep > > powerpc64be. > > > Second, regarding arguments about keeping big-endian support in codebase > > even if no one actually physically runs the code: > > This also applies to leaving 32-bit code (armv7) in tree for future > > compatibility. > > I think that is a bit of a leap, although in principle I agree. > > However, I am much less convinced that a relevant new 32 bit platform > will appear, than that somebody comes out with a 64 BE platform. IoT. It's much pain to work with 16-bits there now. > Bit-rot is a thing, and unless we are willing to say "Screw anybody > silly enough to create BE platform now or in the future" we should > still guard against it. -- WBR, @nuclighthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20251130205348.2360a54c>