From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJ7Hp-000444-NY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:47:50 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJ7Ho-00042u-Vj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:47:49 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60477 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ7Ho-00042a-OT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:47:48 -0400
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:1244)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1MJ7Ho-0002lR-BG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:47:48 -0400
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so40727fga.8
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A4002FA.8090807@us.ibm.com>
References: <4A3FF663.6040209@us.ibm.com>
	<200906222303.27260.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4A4002FA.8090807@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:47:44 +0300
Message-ID: <f43fc5580906230747v7ba86763kd58efd92ced0c6e9@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] State of sparc64-softmmu
From: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@canonical.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 6/23/09, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> 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).

Only for short periods, I frequently test it.

>  So I'd suggest either making it build by default or removing it from the
> tree and moving it into a separate tree.

Ok, I'll enable it.