[OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today

[Judah Richardson]

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:19 PM Chris <oidev at sunos.info> wrote:

> On 2021-05-10 02:23, Toomas Soome via openindiana-discuss wrote:
> >> On 10. May 2021, at 12:05, Volker A. Brandt <vab at bb-c.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Toomas Soome writes:
> >>> The immediate issue is https://www.illumos.org/issues/2757. In core,
> this
> >>> issue means that negative 32-bit numbers are not translated to negative
> >>> 64-bit numbers. Currently used gcc 4.4.4 does implement such
> translation
> >>> in
> >>> compiler, there is no such patch for more recent compilers (firstly,
> the
> >>> code path in more recent compilers has changed a lot, and secondly,
> such
> >>> translation should be done by OS). This effectively does block switch
> from
> >>> gcc 4.4.4. I actually am running gcc 7 built system, knowingly,
> keeping in
> >>> mind that I may be bitten by problems cause by this issue.
> >>
> >> In other words, when that issue is fixed, the primary compiler could be
> >> switched to gcc 7?
> >
> >
> > yes, assuming the needed cleanups are done;) but then again, this issue
> has
> > been
> > open for ~10 years.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Secondly, there are SPARC optimizer issues in gcc 7 and gcc 9 (likely
> with
> >>> 10 as well), crashing compiler while building specific parts of illumos
> >>> tree. One example:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Could this be worked around by selectively turning off -O2 until that
> >> is fixed?
> >
> > I have -O1 in my local patch, yes. But, the implication of this issue
> is, we
> > do
> > not really know how much, or to what extent, we can count on gcc. I do
> > realize
> > this does sound like FUD, but we do depend on external compiler and
> projects
> > are
> > rather removing SPARC support...
> >
> >>
> >>> I haven’t had time to open bugreport with gcc.
> >>
> >> Fair enough.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>> As a side note, it is interesting to see SPARC related discussion in
> this
> >>> list; there is no package repository for SPARC by OpenIndiana;)
> >>
> >> Yes.  However, there are people working on new infrastructure for OI;
> >> as soon as that is in place there will be a public repo for OI/SPARC.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, I am aware of that too. From one hand it is nice, but from other
> hand,
> > there
> > is a reason *why* I would vote for removing SPARC support.
> >
> > And the reason is, I do think we should stop looking backward and start
> > looking
> > forward. I’d rather spend my time on building support for things like
> arm64
> > or
> > risc-v or some quantum computer or something what really matters for
> future
> > of
> > this OS.
> While I agree with you that OI _should_ look to, and target the future
> with
> its
> development efforts. As that will ensure its future relevance. I'm a bit
> nostalgic,
> and would hope that there is still a place for those that have the time,
> to
> post
> their work in an OI supported (SPARC) repo.
>
As someone who learned Fortran and MATLAB on Solaris SPARC workstations,
I'm reasonably sure all the people who want to be part of that effort have
already shown up and made themselves known.

-- long live SPARC!
>
> --Chris
> >
> > rgds,
> > toomas
> > _______________________________________________
> > openindiana-discuss mailing list
> > openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> openindiana-discuss mailing list
> openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>