Seems like we need to look at both the costs and the benefits of dropping support. The costs may be low, but we'd have to figure out just how low---are there just a few quiet users on sparc, or is it really nobody? Second, what are the benefits? It would eliminate some minor hassle, but to be honest I haven't run into any cases where maintaining support for sparc was difficult. Meanwhile, as soon as we stop doing even the very basic regressions we do now, it will likely become irretrievably uncompilable.
So in short, I personally wouldn't miss it, but I'd rather not be too hasty to jettison it just because we think we can get away with it. Steve On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:24 PM Joel Hestness <jthestn...@gmail.com> wrote: > What precisely are we proposing to drop here? > > Joel > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Nilay Vaish <ni...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Andreas Hansson wrote: > > > > Any thoughts at all on the topic, or shall we go ahead? > >> > >> > > I am ok with dropping sparc. May be we should ask on the users list as > > well. > > > > > > -- > > Nilay > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > > > > -- > Joel Hestness > PhD Candidate, Computer Architecture > Dept. of Computer Science, University of Wisconsin - Madison > http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~hestness/ > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > gem5-dev@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
