Re: GCC and binutils updates for buster

Aurelien Jarno <[email protected]> Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:56:44 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.ports.mips,gmane.linux.debian.devel.release
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hi,

On 2018-07-16 17:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The Debian release team lists toolchain support for our release architectures,
> and according to [4], the amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64 architectures are
> supported as primary architectures, and s390x is supported as a secondary
> architectures.  Some notes on other candidates for release architectures:
> 
>  - armel: The armv4t default isn't used very much anymore, and we had
>    issues in the past.
> 
>  - armhf: While arm-linux-gnueabihf is not explicitly listed as a primary
>    architecture, I'm told that the arm-linux-armeabi triplet covers the
>    hard float variants as well.
> 
>  - ppc64el: Not documented as primary architecture, but according to the
>    backend maintainers the powerpc64-linux-gnu triplet includes the le variant.
> 
>  - mips*: There is no support for any mips-linux target either as a primary
>    or secondary release architecture (only bare metal), which matches the
>    experience with mips specific issues for the past Debian releases.

Could we ask the backends maintainers of the mipsisa64-elf backend,
similarly to what has been done for ppc64el? Last time I asked Matthew
Fortune almost 2 years ago, he told me that the embedded mipsisa64-elf
platform (a primary GCC platform) can be used to demonstrate pretty
much any bug in mips therefore making every mips architecture a primary
one.

Let ask him his opinion publicly. I have Cced: him.

Aurelien


> [4] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/criteria.html

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[email protected]                 http://www.aurel32.net

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)