On Feb 9, 2024, at 13:35, Gerald Pfeifer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, Lorenzo Salvadore wrote: >>> [lang/gcc*] never adds MULTILIB for aarch64 (arm64). >>> >>> But these days arm64 (aarch64) has lib32 support: >>> 14.0-RELEASE has it and main [so: 15] has it. > > Does anyone use this, though? (It's not like FreeBSD provides proper > bi-arch support with ports and everything.)
How is amd64/i386 support status any different for such considerations? Are you suggesting removing those? (You may well be.) So far, I do not see much of a justification for non-uniform treatment of amd64/i386 vs. aarch64/armv7 for this subject area for now. (For these, both involve tier 1 as well.) armv7 is projected to still be tier 2 for 15.x . i386 is projected to be unsupported. For non-uniform treatment, that could lead to swapping the status. (32-bit powerpc and powerpcspe are projecgted to be unsupported for 15.x .) >> I think this is not deliberate, but I have never touched this block >> of code since I took the GCC ports maintainership yet. We can >> probably add MULTILIB for aarch64 too and I will check into it >> as soon as possible. > > When that code was written, aarch64 did not feature lib32 support. Is > this, and support by lang/gcc*, "academic", or something users really > want and are likely to use? lib32 was deliberately added. How much do the justifications for that imply something for this subject area? (lib32 status is not a platform if itself. chroot/jail support may well not be a platform of itself: not a platform unless it boots?) clang/clang++ only may well be viable. But I'm still looking for a reason for non-uniform handling amd64/i386 vs. aarch64/armv7 . (That does leave 2 directions: removal vs. adding.) === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
