From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933955AbeCGQBC (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:01:02 -0500 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:54063 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933555AbeCGQA6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:00:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 16:00:50 +0000 From: Joseph Myers X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: Arnd Bergmann CC: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz , GNU C Library , linux-arch , , Henrik Grindal Bakken , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Helmut Grohne Subject: Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1a57be83-3349-5450-ee4f-d2a33569a728@mellanox.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.87] X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-02.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.2) To SVR-IES-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Do you have any updates on this? A related question has come up > for the kernel, as are in the process of removing a number of architectures, > https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/748074/119aaf0d62b3e6c1/ or > see https://lwn.net/Articles/748074/ for a nice summary. No-one has posted glibc test results for 2.27 or 2.26, despite the prior claims of interest in keeping the glibc port. If the kernel port is removed, my assumption is that we should remove the glibc port at that point (not keep it around for possible use with older kernels). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com