Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 14:20:24 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> Cc: "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@wilcox-tech.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: future of sparc64 (was: Making C++11 a hard requirement for FreeBSD) Message-ID: <20171007192024.GA21581@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHM0Q_PuYhnaiQif0w_0gf_ip6QG0sCmMSFj=2xxq4RT42%2BEmg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfq5=KRp4NYKsc15gyS9C7CxrBFxcKQLPwnb_0oPb15vJw@mail.gmail.com> <20171005234149.GE8557@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <59D6CA6C.1040502@Wilcox-Tech.com> <20171007174124.GA20810@lonesome.com> <CAHM0Q_PuYhnaiQif0w_0gf_ip6QG0sCmMSFj=2xxq4RT42%2BEmg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 07:06:29PM +0000, K. Macy wrote: > I think that FreeBSD needs to always have one big-endian arch IMHO it keeps things honest. fwiw, if you fix a port on sparc64 it will usually fix it on powerpc64 and vice versa (~80% correlation). But powerpc64 has a (hardware) future and sparc64 doesn't. I run both at home, but not the powerpc64 continuously. (Actually first typed "4U" it as "$U". Same idea.) So, I'm willing to help keep it going (and even loan a machine to the effort), but I am overcommitted in other areas already. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171007192024.GA21581>