On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:59:52AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the > > > > > i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as > > > > > although they're related they are independant features with > > > > > differing impact. eg removing qemu-system-i386 affects all > > > > > host architectures, not merely 32-bit x86 host, so I think we > > > > > can explain the impact more clearly if we separate them. > > > > > > > > Removing qemu-system-i386 seems ok to me - I think qemu-system-x86_64 is > > > > a superset. > > > > > > > > Removing support for building on 32 bit systems seems like a pity - it's > > > > one of a small number of ways to run 64 bit binaries on 32 bit systems, > > > > and the maintainance overhead is quite small. > > > > > > Note: We're talking about 32-bit *x86* hosts here. Do you really think > > > that > > > someone is still using QEMU usermode emulation > > > to run 64-bit binaries on a 32-bit x86 host?? ... If so, I'd be very > > > surprised! > > > > I don't know - why x86 specifically? One can build a 32 bit binary on any > > host. > > I think 32 bit x86 environments are just more common in the cloud. > > Can you point to anything that backs up that assertion. Clouds I've > seen always give you a 64-bit environment, and many OS no longer > even ship 32-bit installable media.
Sorry about being unclear. I meant that it seems easier to run CI in the cloud in a 32 bit x64 environment than get a 32 bit ARM environment. > I would be surprised if 32-bit > is above very very low single digits usage compared to x86_64. Absolutely. > > > > In fact, keeping this support around forces correct use of > > > > posix APIs such as e.g. PRIx64 which makes the code base > > > > more future-proof. > > > > > > If you're concerned about PRIx64 and friends: We still continue to do > > > compile testing with 32-bit MIPS cross-compilers and Windows 32-bit > > > cross-compilers for now. The only thing we'd lose is the 32-bit "make > > > check" > > > run in the CI. > > > > > > Thomas > > > > Yes - fundamentally 32 bit does not seem that different from e.g. > > windows builds - we presumably support these but AFAIK CI does not > > test these. > > We do compile test windows in CI via mingw, and we also do build > and unit tests via msys. > > Even Windows has dropped 32-bit support though, and so the only > reason we keep 32-bit Windows around is because of Windows 10. > Once a Windows 12 comes along, we'll not need to support 32-bit > Windows either. > > With regards, > Daniel Or maybe we'll just rely on WSL. > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
