[OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today

[Mike Carroll]

I can understand maintaining it's support for SPARC, though I would like to see more work on the new OpenPower Foundation Processors (that have at least SOME similarity in the SMT4 and SMT8). These seem affordable at the moment too.

________________________________
From: Chris <oidev at sunos.info>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:19 PM
To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana <openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org>
Cc: Volker A. Brandt <vab at bb-c.de>
Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today

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.
-- 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