On 03/20/2012 01:42 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
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 hardware
> > (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.
The hardware I'm citing there is 32-bit, and it's coming later *this
year*. So I'm not conflating the two at all here, honestly :)
"Arm32 as primary" and "Arm64 as primary" are two
entirely separate discussions,
and conflating the two isn't solving anything.
I agree. Don't worry, we'll be getting to AArch64 later :)