From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MIrc4-0007Xi-2h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:03:40 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MIrbw-0007X7-44
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:03:38 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55556 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MIrbv-0007X4-Uj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:03:31 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:28078)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1MIrbv-00035i-Fn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:03:31 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1MIrbt-0005Q1-Lj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:03:30 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] State of sparc64-softmmu
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:03:26 +0100
References: <4A3FF663.6040209@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A3FF663.6040209@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200906222303.27260.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@canonical.com>

> But this leads me to wonder, is this just an oversite or is there
> something wrong with sparc64-softmmu that we don't recommend building it
> by default?

My understanding it that there are still several large chunks remaining to be 
implemented, and it can not boot any real guest operating systems.

Paul