Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:39:19 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: sbruno@freebsd.org, Marius Strobl <marius@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Sparc64 doesn't care about you, and you shouldn't care about Sparc64 Message-ID: <20151105043919.GB20673@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <2AAC0EF3-528B-476F-BA9C-CDC3004465D0@bsdimp.com> References: <563A5893.1030607@freebsd.org> <2AAC0EF3-528B-476F-BA9C-CDC3004465D0@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 04:19:38PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > There was some work to get clang to do the right thing for sparc64. > Last I heard, the tree compiles with it. Our users who have tried it are not experienced enough to debug the problems. They would have to work with a developer. > Here’s a breakdown of commits in different parts of sys [...] > sparc64 rate of change has fallen way off since 2011, both in terms > of the number of commits, as well as the share of commits relative > to other platforms. True, but no new machines have been introduced in that time period. (Maybe this will be sufficient for some folks). So the commits are catchup commits to changes in other parts of the tree. So IMHO this is a _slightly_ biased metric compared to e.g. arm, where new machines seem to come out every day :-) tl;dr: if it's just Marius and I keeping it alive, that's clearly insufficient. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151105043919.GB20673>