Re: changes requesting for GCC 17 Release Criteria (secondary targets)
Rainer Orth via Gcc <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gcc.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Janne, > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11:12 AM Rainer Orth via Gcc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Dongsheng, >> >> thanks a lot for doing this. >> >> > ### Full Breakdown by Multiarch and GCC Major Version >> > >> > | Rank | Multiarch | Total | GCC 12 | GCC 13 | GCC 14 | GCC 15 | GCC 16 | >> > |------|-----------|-------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| >> [...] >> > | 8 | i686-solaris | 258 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 58 | 142 | >> > | 9 | sparc-solaris | 258 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 58 | 142 | >> [...] >> > | 15 | x86_64-solaris | 67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | >> > | 16 | sparcv9-solaris | 67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | >> >> Given those numbers and the fact that sparc-sun-solaris2.11 is already a >> primary platform, I wonder if we should make i386-pc-solaris2.11 >> secondary. Sometimes there are significant differences between SPARC >> and x86 here (often in favor of x86, actually). > > My 2c as a bystander these days: If you're planning to add another > solaris target as a secondary platform, please pick x86_64, as AFAIU > none of the upstreams (Oracle or Illumos distros like OpenIndiana) > support anything except sparc and x86_64. Solaris is always bi-arch, both x86 and sparc, and so would be this. I've often found that 32-bit-default builds catch errors that are missing in 64-bit-default ones. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University