Yeah, I understand why you would believe that. I'm not blaming you, I just want to let everyone know the sentence "32-bit code generation as we use it is no longer supported upstream" is incorrect. You can see on the GCC 4.7 [1] and 4.8 [2] changes list that removing any SPARC code generation features is NOT mentioned. In fact, the only SPARC related change was GCC 4.7 dropping Solaris 8, which has been EOL for a long time.
There is no need to switch to a 64-bit userland. I can already build both 32-bit and 64-bit apps on my system, right now. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Sébastien Bernard <sbern...@nerim.net>wrote: > Le 18/04/2014 14:16, Patrick Baggett a écrit : > > I really don't understand why this "32-bit gone" myth is happening. It was > poor wording at least. Debian doesn't even support the ancient 32-bit sparc > CPUs. Modern SPARC ABIs (post 1997) require 64-bit CPUs even when running > in 32-bit code, it's like x32 ABI in x86 land. > > SPARCv7, SPARCv8 = old 32-bit CPUs, Linux kernel barely supports them now > SPARCv9 = modern (post 1997) 64-bit CPUs, Linux and GCC supports them just > fine. > > And just so we can finally kill this rumor dead: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/SPARC-Options.html#SPARC-Options > > GCC still supports the 32-bit ABI: > > With -mv8plus, GCC generates code for the SPARC-V8+ ABI. The difference > from the V8 ABI is that the global and out registers are considered 64 bits > wide. This is enabled by default on Solaris in 32-bit mode for all SPARC-V9 > processors. > > > So no, you don't need to rebuild everything as 64-bit binaries, or should > I say, rebuild under LP64 model. That wouldn't even make sense and would > hurt performance. Please refer anyone who believes this to this message. > > Patrick > >> >> So, if I have understood correctly, the main problem is that 32bit >> compilation is not supported in the current releases of gcc ? >> Going to 64bit userland is a huge leap forward. >> For the second one, I wonder. I've been able to run 3.13 kernel on my >> V240 hardware and I thing it's recent enough. >> I have no clue why is it marked oldkernel something related to the buildd >> ? >> >> Seb >> >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >> listmas...@lists.debian.org >> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5350e5e0.1090...@nerim.net >> >> > Maybe it was poor understanding by my side. I read the > https://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_qualify.html and at the bottom > line, there is this mention of this : > > sparc > Upstream Support > > > According to the gcc maintainer 32bit code generation as we use it is no > longer supported upstream and we should aim for > a switch to 64bit > userland anytime soon. > This is quite clear, and maybe plain wrong according to you. > This seems to prevent switch from gcc 4.6 to gcc 4.8. > > Seb > >
