4 ms·
Yeah, the architecture point comes up in lost of rust in core type discussions, but I think when it comes to the BSD's it's actually a critical argument. I'm no
by raggi 3y ago
Yeah, the architecture point comes up in lost of rust in core type discussions, but I think when it comes to the BSD's it's actually a critical argument. I'm not particularly excited by limping along unusual architectures that most of the contributors can't perform reproductions on, but the BSD's are a bastion in this space and something probably has to be. Addressing this issue in both Rust and LLVM would be valuable at large.
- raggi 3y agoIt seems actually FreeBSD has dropped a lot of old platforms in recent versions, so this may not be a problem anymore. I imagine it would be with some other BSD's.
- kjs3 3y agoThis. FreeBSD probably shouldn't be held back by VAX or MC88k support, but I'd be really disappointed if NetBSD for example abandon them.
- mike_hock 3y agoEven arm32 and x86 are Tier 2. Not exactly unusual architectures. The only Tier 1 architectures are amd64 and arm64, i.e. only the absolute mainstream. Not exactly a bastion of architecture support.
- est31 3y ago> Even arm32 and x86 are Tier 2. Not exactly unusual architectures. There is 32-bit x86 tier 1 targets like i686-unknown-linux-gnu. > The only Tier 1 architectures are [...] only the absolute mainstream. Not exactly a bastion of architecture support. Tier 1 means that the target has the full testsuite run against it for each single pull request. Running the CI is computationally extremely complex, and it is hard to provide a reliable and fast CI service for most architectures.
- mike_hock 3y agoI meant ... the FreeBSD tiers.