From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33411) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cs4I6-0000ZE-HW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:16:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cs4I3-0005X2-Bx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:16:50 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:22932) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cs4I3-0005U1-3J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:16:47 -0400 Message-ID: <1490519798.11328.113.camel@oracle.com> From: Knut Omang Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:16:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1490474958.11328.86.camel@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 21:15 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 March 2017 at 20:49, Knut Omang wrote: > > > > Can we please keep the Sparc support in for a while still? > > Yes, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz and the Debian Project have > kindly provided me with access to a Sparc box. I'm planning > to send a patch that puts sparc into the 'supported' > category before 2.9 release. good to hear! > I would note that so far I've found a couple of TCG > bugs of the "this just doesn't work at all" level, so > it doesn't look like anybody using sparc has been > doing any testing against git master... No, I tried a while ago myself without much success so there's awareness about this sad state. Hopefully we can get some momentum on it soon. > > > > When it comes to build platforms, a legitimate need to be able to keep > > anything > > running, I don't have any authority to promise away hardware or other forms > > of > > Sparc access, but I have been told that that part can be worked out in some > > way > > if we get enough support for this internally. > > I'd recommend trying to get a machine into the gcc compile > farm (assuming they'd be willing to take it) -- that way > it's accessible to developers for a range of open > source projects. I'll bring that suggestion forward, Thanks, Knut > > thanks > -- PMM