This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Disable building with i386-*, -march=i386 or -mcpu=i386.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:08:18 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable building with i386-*, -march=i386 or -mcpu=i386.
- References: <513FE49D dot 3050406 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1303131610540 dot 19781 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <51526E77 dot 4040801 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1303271431550 dot 23096 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <5154668A dot 6000700 at redhat dot com> <5160465E dot 8060400 at redhat dot com> <20130408210918 dot D97632C074 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 04/08/2013 05:09 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> On 03/28/2013 11:49 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> If you agree that eliding i386 to i686 is acceptable then I'll file
>>> a BZ with the details of my initial work to remove i386, and add it
>>> to the master todo list.
>
> I am not really convinced that this is the right thing to do. The
> stuff about RPM does not convince me at all. For one thing,
> limitations in downstream package systems are not real reasons for
> changing the meanings of things in GNU packages. For another thing,
> people who use rpmbuild to build glibc themselves but can't be
> bothered to figure out how to configure their rpmbuild setup don't
> deserve our consideration or assistance. If anything, just an
> "i386-* is not supported; you lose" failure at configure time ought
> to suffice.
That's true, and I'm willing to make it hard error if that's what
people think we should actually do.
Even if you disagree that downstream should not be a reason, what
about budding developers that want to get started hacking GNU and
for some reason or another their system target triplet is i386-*
and everything breaks. I'd rather just commute that to i686-* and
have them happy little hackers :-)
The BZ's we have fixed with this issue are all about novice developers
needing help or a configure error to tell them to do the right thing.
> But I don't really object if all it means is that i386-*
> configurations elicit a loud complaint and are implicitly transmuted
> into i686-*. I would object strongly if you did anything to break
> i[45]86-* configurations that work just fine today.
Agreed.
>> +# Configure for i686 if the user asks for i386. We don't support
>> +# i386 any more but it continues to be common for users to configure
>> +# 32-bit x86 as i386. We build for i686 instead.
>> +if test "$machine" = i386; then
>> + machine="i686"
>> + echo "\
>> +*** WARNING: Support for i386 is deprecated. Building for i686 instead."
>> +fi
>
> Use AS_MSG_WARN. Also, this really belongs in sysdeps/x86/preconfigure
> so as not to worsen the situation wrt non-generic magic in generic files.
Good point, I'll fix this up.
Cheers,
Carlos.