From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:33:37 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: remove version 2.21 In-Reply-To: <56CAFE21.4030803@zacarias.com.ar> References: <1456142845-5372-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <1456142845-5372-2-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <20160222132027.091e7c84@free-electrons.com> <56CAFE21.4030803@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <20160222133337.743dba7f@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:25:05 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > > Is it SPARC entirely, or only some specific architecture variants of > > SPARC that are no longer supported ? > > > Quick SPARC lesson. Good, because I don't know anything about SPARC :) > SPARC < V9 = 32 bits (AKA sparc arch). > SPARC >= V9 = 64 bits and 32 bits as well (similar to x86, AKA sparc64 > arch). ACK. > Now, you can use atomics for >= v9 and even on 32 bits, but normally > even if you use 32 bit userland you want a 64 bit kernel anyway (IIRC > solaris supports 32 bit kernel as well for old/transition versions, but > AFAIK linux never went there). I don't really see why you're talking specifically about atomics here, but OK with the rest. > So basically yes, sparc = no glibc, sparc64 = yes glibc, because we > don't support multilib (in gentoo it wasn't 100% multilib in the past, > except that binutils/gcc did support -m64/-m32, but there wasn't libc > support, hence not really multilib). I don't follow the relation with multilib support. Care to expand on this? Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com