To make it clear on the record since it obviously wasn't to many people
given the slight incorrect language I used.
I do not believe this case qualified for self review or automatic
approval. Please submit a proposal and start a fast-track timer.
--
Darren J Moffat
Bart Smaalders wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > My personal preference, for now, would be to deliver *both* 32- and
> > 64-bit versions of the applications for both SPARC and x86, but deliver
> > the 64-bit versions in a separate path (/usr/bin/sparcv9 and
> > /usr/bin/amd64 or somesuch), so tha
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
> > Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >> I'm derailing this automatic approval. I want at least a fast-track
> >> that explains why the asymetry between SPARC and x86 is actually
> >> useful in addition to what Joe asked for.
> >
> > Because we support x86 mac
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:14:12PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > Yes, isaexec is needed for correctness, but its not used on any
> > performance critical paths, and remains, IMO, an ugly hack rather than
> > an elegant solution.
>
> isaexec handling could move into th
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:40:46PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:14:12PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > It's a full case now.
> >
> > Who or what decided that ? IMO this still fast-track.
>
> Darren
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:14:12PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
[snip]
> It's a full case now.
Who or what decided that ? IMO this still fast-track.
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 03:03:37PM -0500, Rick Matthews wrote:
> In reviewing the email trail (which is getting rather long), Darren
> said derail, then said "at least a fast track". I am going to assume
> Darren is OK with a fast track until then. I propose we take no more
> than 5 minutes discuss
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:40:46PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:14:12PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> It's a full case now.
>>>
>> Who or what decided that ? IMO th
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:40:46PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:14:12PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> [snip]
> > It's a full case now.
>
> Who or what decided that ? IMO this still fast-track.
Darren Moffat derailed it.
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Right now "isaexec" isn't that bad. However the extra |exec()| becomes
> an issue in two scenarios:
> 1. Tiny application with very small runtime (e.g. GNU "echo")
> 2. Machine with many CPUs - |exec()| must tear down the address space
> and makes crosscalls to all other CPUs
Someone needs to update the IAM file then as it currently is a
fast track timing out 6/6.
Regardless, I have asked for a short time to discuss this case
during ARC business Wednesday so we can decide (off list!) how
to deal with this case.
Again, we do NOT need to derail cases to have these discu
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Groan... and noone will find these binaries. And /usr/bin/${MACH64}/ is
> not an ARC'ed interface either...
> ... what about a compromise: Use 64bit versions of these utilities on
> 64bit-only kernels by default and use /usr/bin/64/ on platoforms like
> Solaris/x86. Would tha
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Groan... and noone will find these binaries. And /usr/bin/${MACH64}/ is
> not an ARC'ed interface either...
> ... what about a compromise: Use 64bit versions of these utilities on
> 64bit-only kernels by default and use /usr/bin/64/ on platoforms like
> Solaris/x86. Would that
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> > I don't see why /usr/gnu/bin/awk should get preference over /usr/bin/awk
> > just because its in gnucore.
>
> How about because it's already known to be 64-bit clean since the GNU
> utilities run on platforms that are 64-bit only, while the Sola
James Carlson wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski writes:
> > John Plocher wrote:
> > > Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> > >> Sorry, I want a fast-track.
> > >
> > > What are the architectural (as opposed to C-Team, Design or RE) issues?
> > >>
> > >> 1) I believe this is an incomplete project.
> > >
> > > This sou
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
> > Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> >> Sorry, I want a fast-track.
> >
> > What are the architectural (as opposed to C-Team, Design or RE)
> > issues?
> >
> >> 1) I believe this is an incomplete project.
> >
> > This sounds to me like "go boil the ocean" sc
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
> > Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.66 04/17/08 SMI
> > This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems
> > 1. Introduction
> > 1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
> >Switch SPARC GNU coreutils+bash from 32 to 64bit
> > 1.2. Nam
Guys, I thought we agreed that when the discussion thread gets this
long, we take it off the list and set some time aside at a meeting.
-- mark
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
>
>> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>>
>>> As other posts have suggested, we need to decide what the appropr
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> As other posts have suggested, we need to decide what the appropriate group
> of utilities to do as subprojects is appropriate.
I disagree that "we == PSARC" for that case. Give guidance, yes, but
it is not PSARC's job to make the final decision.
> My "Rome" is all versi
John Plocher wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>> As other posts have suggested, we need to decide what the appropriate
>> group
>> of utilities to do as subprojects is appropriate.
>
> I disagree that "we == PSARC" for that case. Give guidance, yes, but
> it is not PSARC's job to make the final de
Mostly deleted. Most of Roland's concern is his scheduling. Sorry, I
don't care.
Desiring to work on something this weekend, is not one of the reasons for
using "self-review".
Other observations follow:
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Why do you want that I want to do _all_ utilities in one piece ? It'
21 matches
Mail list logo
