Thomas Huth <[email protected]> writes:
> On 27.06.2018 09:57, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Thomas Huth <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 27.06.2018 08:51, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> [...] >>>> Drop support for 32bit hosts in qemu? >>> >>> I guess the only way to answer that question reliably is to send a patch >>> to mark 32-bit hosts as deprecated... >>> >>> Anyway, you still have got to fix that problem with -m32 now somehow >>> since we certainly can not drop 32-bit immediately. >> >> We certainly can if we want to. >> >> Our formal deprecation policy codifies our compromise between the need >> to evolve QEMU and the need of its users for stable external interfaces. >> >> "Compiles on host X" is also a need, but it's a different one. >> Evidence: "Supported build platforms" has its own appendix, separate >> from "Deprecated features". It's mum on 32-bit hosts. > > Theoretically I'd agree, but actually it's more than that: If we drop > support for 32-bit hosts, we could also drop the qemu-system-i386, > qemu-system-ppc and qemu-system-arm targets, since qemu-system-x86_64, > qemu-system-ppc64 and qemu-system-aarch64 are a clear superset of > these. Hmm not quite - not building on HOST != not wanting to run GUEST While I'm unlikely to build on a 32 bit ARM system I run 32 bit guests all the time. > But that would also mean a change of the user interface, since the name > of the executable changes, and at least for ppc, there are also subtle > differences (different default machine type, different default CPU types). > > Thomas -- Alex Bennée
