Re: Future of m68k - Etch and beyond
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 09:02:53AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:50:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > >
> > > > How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
> > > > How is the Coldfire port going on?
> > >
> > > I think Aranym is a better prospect than ColdFire. Without revisiting the
> > > ISA differences etc, Aranym wins on availability and price.
> > I do think we'll have a hard time convincing people that it's a good
> > idea to support a port which exists in emulation only.
> Remaining on topic, why should it be coldfire only?
I've never said it should be coldfire only. If I've implied that, that
was a mistake. Let me restate that: if it ever turns out to be
impossible to create a hybrid port, I will consider the coldfire stuff
to be a dead end.
At this point, though, I'm still convinced that it's possible to create
a port which will work on both coldfire and "classic" m68k; and with a
glibc that has TLS support (which we still need as well), it doesn't
even have to slow down things too much (since you can compile optimized
libraries where it makes sense, and have the dynamic linker select the
right one at runtime).
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22