From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43158) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCa0W-0002eK-9z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:06:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCa0S-0006lS-3C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:06:55 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-x242.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c04::242]:36037) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCa0R-0006lO-UR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:06:52 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id 78so3135345qgt.3 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Richard Henderson References: From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <86b7f579-1369-92b0-a060-c4e7449cb485@twiddle.net> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:06:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] linux-user: drop support for "unknown" host CPUs (ie hppa and m68k) ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers Cc: Riku Voipio , Laurent Vivier On 06/13/2016 02:26 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > Currently our configure script allows linux-user targets to be built > for "unknown" host CPU architectures (which must be using the TCI > interpreter). However, code like user-exec.c has host-architecture > #ifdef ladders which in practice mean you can't build linux-user for > an arbitrary host architecture. The only two host architectures which > have code in user-exec.c but aren't recognised by configure are > HPPA and m68k. > > I'd like to move to an "every supported host architecture has a > linux-user/host/$(ARCH)/hostdep.h header" model (this fixes a problem > in the code currently in master where make doesn't notice it needs to > rebuild if a host arch moves from "using generic/" to "using $(ARCH)"). > Host architectures which we sort-of-but-don't support are an annoying > corner case I'd like to be able to drop entirely, by either: > (1) just dropping the support outright I'm ok with this. r~