From owner-freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Wed Nov 11 20:17:47 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@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 EBADDA2A166 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig001@lerwick.hopto.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B9A132F for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig001@lerwick.hopto.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id C9284A2A165; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:46 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: sparc64@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 C8B30A2A164 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig001@lerwick.hopto.org) Received: from mx.bsdtec.net (bsdtec.plus.com [84.92.41.141]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70175132E; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig001@lerwick.hopto.org) Received: from localhost (mx.bsdtec.net [172.16.32.2]) by mx.bsdtec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C771A5C8; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.bsdtec.net ([172.16.32.2]) by localhost (mx.bsdtec.net [172.16.32.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 8yoIhcVCDbGx; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (mx.bsdtec.net [172.16.32.2]) by mx.bsdtec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BA11A5A4; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bsdtec.net Received: from mx.bsdtec.net ([172.16.32.2]) by localhost (mx.bsdtec.net [172.16.32.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id zHJdE1-YgsV5; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.bsdtec.net (mx.bsdtec.net [172.16.32.2]) by mx.bsdtec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12C21A599; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Craig Butler To: John Baldwin Cc: Sean Bruno , Anna Wilcox , Marius Strobl , Jordan Hubbard , sparc64@freebsd.org, Warner Losh Message-ID: <1411902059.696.1447273047281.JavaMail.craig@w520> In-Reply-To: <4004425.K7Etsx0SLe@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <563A5893.1030607@freebsd.org> <39947478-4710-47D8-BAB1-FC93979570B6@mail.turbofuzz.com> <4004425.K7Etsx0SLe@ralph.baldwin.cx> Subject: Re: Sparc64 doesn't care about you, and you shouldn't care about Sparc64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.16.32.3] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.4_GA_5718 (Zimbra Desktop/7.2.7_12059_Windows) Thread-Topic: Sparc64 doesn't care about you, and you shouldn't care about Sparc64 Thread-Index: iNIe1Ouj5UljLZe4Or+N7985X0SVFQ== X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:17:47 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Baldwin" > To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org > Cc: "Anna Wilcox" , "Marius Strobl" , "Sean Bruno" > , "Jordan Hubbard" , sparc64@freebsd.org, "Warner Losh" > Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2015 6:32:08 PM > Subject: Re: Sparc64 doesn't care about you, and you shouldn't care about Sparc64 > > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 04:07:35 PM Brian McGovern wrote: > > I have to step in on Jordan's side on this one. As a > > recently-former lab admin (June), we were - and I assume continue > > to - chucking Sun Sparc hardware as fast as we can EOL the > > products which run on the platform, and to the best of my > > knowledge, we haven't bought new gear since Oracle bought Sun. I > > think I still have an SB150 sitting in a closet collecting dust > > for the emergency case which is predestined to emergency at some > > point, but we're not even considering giving the boxes another > > life as second tier hardware - the x86/64 space offers far > > superior metrics in terms of price/performance/support/replacement > > parts. > > > > This, of course, means that our customers will be eventually follow > > suit as they do their next round of upgrades. While this means > > there will be a ton of Sparc64 hardware around at low prices, I > > have no doubt it'll be a niche community, like BETAMAX, Laserdisc, > > and HD-DVD before... > > > > If there is someone who loves this platform enough to keep it going > > single-handedly, or nearly so, that's one thing. If the discussion > > is to divert project resources to keep it alive just because its > > one more platform, I have a laundry list of things that I suspect > > will have a bigger impact on the broader x86 (and even ARM) > > community; then again, I expect just about everyone has such a > > list. > > This last question is an important one I think. What is the actual > cost to > the project to let sparc64 remain Tier-2? That means we aren't > committed to > building packages, so that mostly lets Sean off the hook. > > The biggest hang up I can see is the question of toolchain. > > On the question of toolchain I think GCC 4.2 continues to become > incredibly > less useful. If we could have an 11 without GCC 4.2 that would be > ideal. > However, clang is only production-viable on x86 right now. Even lldb > doesn't > work on i386 and only works on amd64. If your argument for tossing > sparc64 > is GCC 4.2 then if you are logically consistent you have to toss a > whole lot > of other stuff as well. (Even clang on amd64 is still using binutils > ld) > > Realistically I think FreeBSD needs to support two sets of > toolchains: > clang and modern (GPLv3) GCC/binutils. > > I think it is a laudable goal to have the option of a GPL-free base > system, > but I think we should also make it an option to use a modern GCC > toolchain. > > For platforms that depend on GCC 4.2 I think we should be moving them > to > using newer GCC in some fashion. That is relevant for several > architectures > that we definitely want to keep going forward, not just sparc64, and > it's a > problem we need to solve regardless. Once that is addressed it is > not clear > to me what drain on project resources sparc64 is. > > -- > John Baldwin > _______________________________________________ > 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" > Just to raise something else as well, port maintainers seem hesitant to push sparc64 fixes in. I have raised a few fixes PR (specifically around the compat[789]x ports) that are still open. There are also some other PR's open that could do with more experienced eyes to help. It would be a shame to see sparc64@ killed off on FreeBSD. I would be keen to keep working on it if someone want a n00b under their wing. Kind Regards Craig Butler