Re: sparc qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-23 Thread Patrick Baggett
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:44 -0500, Patrick Baggett wrote: > > I didn't see where GCC was dropping 32-bit sparc upstream in the > > changelogs. This seems inaccurate since a 64-bit userland has negative > > performance implications, and this

Re: sparc qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:44 -0500, Patrick Baggett wrote: > I didn't see where GCC was dropping 32-bit sparc upstream in the > changelogs. This seems inaccurate since a 64-bit userland has negative > performance implications, and this is true for both Solaris and Linux > and not recommended by anyo

Re: sparc qualification for Wheezy

2012-05-23 Thread Patrick Baggett
Adam, I didn't see where GCC was dropping 32-bit sparc upstream in the changelogs. This seems inaccurate since a 64-bit userland has negative performance implications, and this is true for both Solaris and Linux and not recommended by anyone. A 64-bit userland is barely available for Linux -- just