> > This is the case with dev-lang/v8: it doesn't build on x32 > > (<https://bugs.gentoo.org/423815>), and upstream said they *won't* > > support x32 > > (<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/v8-users/c-_URSZqTq8/7wHl095t2CMJ>). > > > > Note that with v8 it's not just about getting v8 itself to compile, but > > also making it generate correct JIT code on x32, which would require > > substantial changes to v8 code (in fact, a whole new 40K arch port, see > > the discussion linked to above). > > > > Should dev-lang/v8 get p.masked on x32 profile, or is there some better > > way to handle it? What are your suggestions?
Just mask it or port it. x32 is not user-ready yet. Only for curious devs. Does v8 have portable non-JIT variant? Should be enough for the first time to test/fix dependent packages. > From what Diego wrote about it, I would say we shouldn't spend much > time and effort on x32. I know it's the new and shiny thing, but it > doesn't seem very useful. I think arm64/aarch64/armv8 is more > promising, if you want to play around with a new arch. > > > I had a crazy idea to just build v8 and v8-dependent packages using > > non-x32 ABI, but I'm not sure if it's possible and if it would be the > > right thing to do. Not worth the effort IMO. > If it's easy to do a kind of multilib setup, then it might be worth doing. It's fine to have multilib with all the 3 ABIs all at once. It works today already. -- Sergei
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
