| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 5 October 2012 22:28, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Should dev-lang/v8 get p.masked on x32 profile, or is there some better |
| 4 |
>> way to handle it? What are your suggestions? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> From what Diego wrote about it, I would say we shouldn't spend much |
| 7 |
> time and effort on x32. I know it's the new and shiny thing, but it |
| 8 |
> doesn't seem very useful. I think arm64/aarch64/armv8 is more |
| 9 |
> promising, if you want to play around with a new arch. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I wouldn't write it off, but the obvious thing to do for now is to |
| 12 |
mask it. Longer-term the cleaner solution would be to not keyword it, |
| 13 |
assuming it takes off enough to have keywords in the first place. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If people want to work on it they will, and that's fine. That said, |
| 16 |
it took years for some of the big packages to be amd64-ready, and I'm |
| 17 |
not sure x32 has nearly as much push behind it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Rich |
Archives