From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 19402 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2020 00:02:28 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 5 Jun 2020 00:02:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 28519 invoked by uid 550); 5 Jun 2020 00:02:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 28495 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2020 00:02:25 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:02:07 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Daniel Kolesa Cc: Joseph Myers , musl@lists.openwall.com, Rich Felker , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, eery@paperfox.es, Will Springer , Palmer Dabbelt via binutils , via libc-dev , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Message-ID: <20200605000207.GO31009@gate.crashing.org> References: <20200602142337.GS25173@kitsune.suse.cz> <3aeb6dfe-ae23-42f9-ac23-16be6b54a850@www.fastmail.com> <20200604171232.GG31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200604171844.GO1079@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200604173312.GI31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200604211009.GK31009@gate.crashing.org> <60fa8bd7-2439-4403-a0eb-166a2fb49a4b@www.fastmail.com> <4ca9d8f4-4d61-4e99-969c-03a99e4fd3cc@www.fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ca9d8f4-4d61-4e99-969c-03a99e4fd3cc@www.fastmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility Hi! On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:26:22AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > Either way I'll think about it some more and possibly prepare an RFC port. I'm definitely willing to put in the work and later maintenance effort if that's what it takes to make it happen. Yeah, you'll need to convince all parties involved that it will not be more work to them then they are willing to put in. Initial development and ongoing work, as you say. For GCC it is probably an easy decision (but we'll see your proposed ABI amendments): it shouldn't be much work at all, and it even benefits us directly (it'll fill some holes in our testing matrix). Segher