| 1 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:33:26 -0400 |
| 2 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I think ppc64le would become popular, |
| 6 |
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > 1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort. |
| 9 |
> > 2. Some PowerPC user, little endian apparently feels cheap, wrong, |
| 10 |
> > and PCish. 3. Other distrbutions like Ubuntu, Redhat and SUSE |
| 11 |
> > already support little endian in powerpc. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> In terms of the codepaths, what's different between ppc64le vs ppc64, |
| 16 |
> and ppc64le vs amd64 ? Obviously kernels will differ, but in terms of |
| 17 |
> C/C++/other compiled source code what needs to change? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If all this needs is its own profile for a CHOST/CBUILD specification |
| 20 |
> and it can leverage an existing keyword, then this should be rather |
| 21 |
> simple to implement yes? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I spoke to blueness in #gentoo-powerpc and he basically said the same |
| 24 |
thing, that the existing ppc64 keyword should suffice. He noted that |
| 25 |
we do not have different keywords for every mips variant because that |
| 26 |
would be a lot of keywords! Stage 3 tarballs (possibly cross-compiled) |
| 27 |
could be provided and some initial work could be done to ensure they |
| 28 |
actually function but beyond that, endian issues would simply be dealt |
| 29 |
with as they are reported. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives