On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I'd like to propose that we pull libck into our tree and use it to > replace > > some of our stuff like the freelist, ink_atomic_list and hash tables. > > > > http://concurrencykit.org/ > > > > Right now there are not enough distro's to make just linking against > system > > libs feasible, but I'd like to set it up in such a way (configure time > > option) so that we can encourage distro's to add a libck package in the > > future. > > So from the summit notes, it seems that dropping 32 bit is being proposed > because Concurrency Kit only supports 64bit platform. Is that correct? > I think there was a misunderstanding regarding this. I don't think there is a 64bit requirement on libck. But when dropping 32bit support came up related to this, it was suggested that we drop it anyway. So as far as I know, these are two separate issues. Maybe Brian G or Theo can confirm or deny that. > > I'm -1 on these changes until someone can explicitly list the current set > of supported platforms, and then the new set. It's too hard to figure out > what the new set of platforms will be otherwise, and I don't think it's > reasonable to ask people to do that. Once we have this nailed down, I'll be > +1 as long as Linux and OS X are on the final list. > >From the website: Architectures ARM, Power, SPARCv9, x86, x86-64 Compilersgcc, clang, icc, mingw32, mingw64, suncc I think the only arch that we support now that is not on that list is MIPS which is fairly new. I think if that is important to someone, and I assume it is, we should submit a patch to libck for it. That will probably be more difficult than the patch for ATS though, since we use GCC builtins and libck uses assembler for each arch. Also, FWIW, I don't know that we agreed that MIPS was a supported arch, or that someone just submitted a patch for it. > J
