| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > 1) Are you 'friendly' towards ports? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Yes. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Great! I've always found the other linux distributions for sparc lacked |
| 8 |
coherency as the development team for it is too fragmented. I think a |
| 9 |
source distribution can get around those problems. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> > Shall I write a patch? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yes. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
OK. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > 4) I'm working on a 64-bit capable version using redhat's gcc |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Sounds like a reasonable intermediate solution. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Will your sparc32 port work on the Sun IPC and IPX machines ? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Good question. I haven't decided on a lowest common denominator yet. I am |
| 24 |
currently using -msupersparc for my builds as this is the lowest |
| 25 |
platform that I can reasonably use to make a stage1. IPC and IPX are just |
| 26 |
too darn slow :). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'll remove the build flags altogether for the stage1 as they're not |
| 29 |
really needed. In this case the lowest platform would be the lowest |
| 30 |
supported by kernel/gcc/glibc, that's sun4c (IPC) IIRC. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Thanks for the input, |
| 33 |
maarten |
Archives