On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> The hardware is way slower ... so we can just build on faster
> (x86_64). Which is the only sane way to do it.
> Trying to build on ARM directly is kind of a gimmick but nothing one
> can seriously use to build a whole operating system. (Yes it works but
> it is way to slow).
Well, we've done a number of mass rebuilds, a complete bootstrap from
scratch, and several releases now. So, it might be a "gimmick", but it
works. We need to stop thinking of ARM as it was 10 years ago. This
year, we're going to see systems with 288+ cores in 2U of rack space.
Why are you even bringing up this as yet unreleased hardware in the context
of "arm32 builds are slow" ? Even if it was released today, it doesn't
solve this problem at all.
"Arm32 as primary" and "Arm64 as primary" are two entirely separate
and conflating the two isn't solving anything.