From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MIrpf-0007ZV-RV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:43 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MIrpa-0007Yy-Q9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:43 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40774 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MIrpa-0007Yv-Kj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:38 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:41953) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MIrpY-0005uw-N7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:37 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n5MMBEOe016819 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:11:14 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n5MMHYkT243356 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:34 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n5MMHXuM015241 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4A4002FA.8090807@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:17:30 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] State of sparc64-softmmu References: <4A3FF663.6040209@us.ibm.com> <200906222303.27260.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200906222303.27260.paul@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: Blue Swirl , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Dustin Kirkland 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). So I'd suggest either making it build by default or removing it from the tree and moving it into a separate tree. -- Regards, Anthony Liguori