Phil is correct, while discussing ck and the architectures it supports we proposed dropping 32bit support independent of ck.
Brian On Saturday, April 12, 2014, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org<javascript:;>> > 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 >
