From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MIrug-0008WC-IQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:22:54 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MIrub-0008VM-JO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:22:53 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55498 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MIrub-0008VJ-D5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:22:49 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:28820)
	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 1MIrub-0007A2-5j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:22:49 -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 1MIrua-0006Hl-6f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:22:48 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] State of sparc64-softmmu
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:22:44 +0100
References: <4A3FF663.6040209@us.ibm.com>
	<200906222303.27260.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4A4002FA.8090807@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A4002FA.8090807@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200906222322.45361.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: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@canonical.com>

On Monday 22 June 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> If it's not building by default, it's going to bitrot (it already has).

Yes, although without any runtime tests it's still likely to suffer quite 
badly from bitrot.

Paul