On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:32 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 04:10 PM, waz0wski wrote: > > I would love to see Debian-on-SPARC continue on, even if not fully > > supported, similar to how the FreeBSD project handles sparc64[1] > > Ok, the question is: Do we want sparc32 as well or just sparc64? As > I mentioned already, sparc32 (32-bit userland and 64-bit kernel - > where supported) most likely needs less porting and should be > easier to be kept up-to-date than sparc64. > My two cents: if you have limited efforts, then 64-bit sparc only is the most future proof. Ideally though, you would not use 64-bit binaries unless it made sense, because 64-bit binaries on sparc are usually slower. There is no magic "64-bit is faster" on sparc like there is on x86. 32-bit binaries are not the same as supporting ancient SPARC CPUs which are 32-bit only. All binaries should be built for SPARCv9 ISA, which is the ISA that supports 64-bit processing. 32-bit sparc binaries using v9 ISA is more similar to the new(ish) "x32" ISA for x86 CPUs, where pointers are mapped <= 4GB, but registers are still 64-bits wide. > > However, both 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC packages can be built on > 64-bit machines using different build chroots. > > > I have access to a couple of UltraSPARC T2 systems (T5220/T5440) which > > could be made available for development and testing purposes -- ping me > > off-list for more info. > > I will come back to that. > > Adrian > > -- > .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > : :' : Debian Developer - [email protected] > `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - [email protected] > `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 > >
