[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <13f337ec-9ab8-9d7f-8984-0992ef73ddc7@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:38:31 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, nd <nd@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcroft@....com>, philb@....org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/27] [AARCH64] Fix utmp struct for compatibility
reasons.
On 06/23/2016 09:56 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com> writes:
>
>> So the question becomes do we care enough about the incompatibles
>> between AARCH32 and AARCH64 to fix this and go just worry about ILP32
>> and LP64?
>
> Some armv8 chips do not implement all of armv7, so how relevant is
> aarch32 on aarch64?
I also do not see sufficient justification for this ABI break.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists