On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2012/5/16 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx>: >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I noticed this article: >>> >>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTEwMTk >>> >>> Has this been discussed on fedora? >> >> Not that I've seen. Also, the article is either incomplete or >> incorrect, as full x32 support for glibc hasn't landed yet. Upstream >> is still working on that and it might get in for glibc-2.16. >> >> If this were to come to Fedora, I would expect it to start as a >> secondary architecture. > > Secondary arch suggests the whole fedora collection is built with x32 ABI. > But there is one noticeable exception with that; as I understood:the > kernel will anyway "remains" at x86_64. The kernel is x86_64, with support for the x32 ABI, yes. > So that make me wonder if we really need to built the whole collection > as x32 ? Or if we only wants a selection of components to be optimized > by x32. For example does it matter to move the whole Xorg server > infrastructure as x32 or is it possible to leave it as x86_64 ? or is > there any benifit for the move to x32 in this area ? You can't link x32 binaries against i686/x86_64 libraries, etc. You need entirely separate userspace. From a Fedora perspective, the way to do that is to add an architecture to koji and build whatever you want. That arch add should start as secondary. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
