On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the > > > i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as > > > although they're related they are independant features with > > > differing impact. eg removing qemu-system-i386 affects all > > > host architectures, not merely 32-bit x86 host, so I think we > > > can explain the impact more clearly if we separate them. > > > > Removing qemu-system-i386 seems ok to me - I think qemu-system-x86_64 is > > a superset. > > > > Removing support for building on 32 bit systems seems like a pity - it's > > one of a small number of ways to run 64 bit binaries on 32 bit systems, > > and the maintainance overhead is quite small. > > Note: We're talking about 32-bit *x86* hosts here. Do you really think that > someone is still using QEMU usermode emulation > to run 64-bit binaries on a 32-bit x86 host?? ... If so, I'd be very surprised! I don't know - why x86 specifically? One can build a 32 bit binary on any host. I think 32 bit x86 environments are just more common in the cloud. > > In fact, keeping this support around forces correct use of > > posix APIs such as e.g. PRIx64 which makes the code base > > more future-proof. > > If you're concerned about PRIx64 and friends: We still continue to do > compile testing with 32-bit MIPS cross-compilers and Windows 32-bit > cross-compilers for now. The only thing we'd lose is the 32-bit "make check" > run in the CI. > > Thomas Yes - fundamentally 32 bit does not seem that different from e.g. windows builds - we presumably support these but AFAIK CI does not test these. -- MST
