From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52104) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fY8JS-0003mH-Au for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:08:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fY8JP-0001MB-4B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:08:38 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-x242.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c0c::242]:41459) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fY8JO-0001K1-KG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:08:35 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-x242.google.com with SMTP id h10-v6so1599554wrq.8 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 04:08:34 -0700 (PDT) References: <20180625131253.11218-1-kraxel@redhat.com> <20180625131253.11218-2-kraxel@redhat.com> <6ad67e44-b002-1cd7-cfd1-2d98ebde1a7e@redhat.com> <20180627065126.mwzdxshr3njzok7n@sirius.home.kraxel.org> <0df8a05c-43fc-6e85-b13c-d3f5c4691964@redhat.com> <87fu18ach6.fsf_-_@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:08:31 +0100 Message-ID: <87in64wkpc.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Drop support for 32bit hosts in qemu? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: Markus Armbruster , Martin Schrodt , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann , Max Reitz Thomas Huth writes: > On 27.06.2018 09:57, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Thomas Huth writes: >> >>> On 27.06.2018 08:51, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> [...] >>>> Drop support for 32bit hosts in qemu? >>> >>> I guess the only way to answer that question reliably is to send a patch >>> to mark 32-bit hosts as deprecated... >>> >>> Anyway, you still have got to fix that problem with -m32 now somehow >>> since we certainly can not drop 32-bit immediately. >> >> We certainly can if we want to. >> >> Our formal deprecation policy codifies our compromise between the need >> to evolve QEMU and the need of its users for stable external interfaces. >> >> "Compiles on host X" is also a need, but it's a different one. >> Evidence: "Supported build platforms" has its own appendix, separate >> from "Deprecated features". It's mum on 32-bit hosts. > > Theoretically I'd agree, but actually it's more than that: If we drop > support for 32-bit hosts, we could also drop the qemu-system-i386, > qemu-system-ppc and qemu-system-arm targets, since qemu-system-x86_64, > qemu-system-ppc64 and qemu-system-aarch64 are a clear superset of > these. Hmm not quite - not building on HOST !=3D not wanting to run GUEST While I'm unlikely to build on a 32 bit ARM system I run 32 bit guests all the time. > But that would also mean a change of the user interface, since the name > of the executable changes, and at least for ppc, there are also subtle > differences (different default machine type, different default CPU types). > > Thomas -- Alex Benn=C3=A9e