Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Stratos Psomadakis <psomas@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] x32 fun pants
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:30:38
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] x32 fun pants by Mike Frysinger
1 On 09/15/2011 10:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
2 > ive converted my system over to x86/amd64/x32 multilib for funs. but i can
3 > see how some people wont want all three all the time. so the question is how
4 > we want to make this available to users at the release/profile level.
5 >
6 > background: x32 is a new ABI that runs on 64bit x86_64 processors. see [1].
7 > you'll need gcc-4.7+, binutils-2.21.50+, glibc-2.15+, and linux-3.2+.
8 >
9 > KEYWORDS wise, i'd like to avoid having to add "x32" everywhere. instead,
10 > reusing "amd64". only downside is the existing USE=amd64 behavior, but we can
11 > address that by making MULTILIB_ABIS a USE_EXPAND (i think this came up before
12 > with the portage multilib discussion).
13 >
14 > release wise, we could ship a single multilib stage (x86/amd64/x32) and make
15 > it easy to convert to a subset. that way we still need only one.
16 >
17 > other thoughts ?
18 > -mike
19 >
20 > [1]
21 Is a x86/amd64/x32 multilib profile just going to provide toolchain
22 support for x32 binaries (like x86 in a x86/amd64 multilib profile), or
23 do we want a 'full' x32 profile, where every package is built by default
24 as x32 code?
26 I'm guessing that as x32 gets standarized, and providing it really
27 outperforms amd64, most distros we'll move to using x32 binaries/libs by
28 default.
30 But then, what if a user wants amd64 for specific packages, which depend
31 on shared libraries built as x32 (maybe he should just use the amd64
32 profile then)?
34 --
35 Stratos Psomadakis
36 <psomas@g.o>


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] x32 fun pants Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>