trafficserver-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Geffon <bri...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Importing libck
Date Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:01:38 GMT
Phil is correct, while discussing ck and the architectures it supports we
proposed dropping 32bit support independent of ck.

Brian

On Saturday, April 12, 2014, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, James Peach <jpeach@apache.org<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to propose that we pull libck into our tree and use it to
> > replace
> > > some of our stuff like the freelist, ink_atomic_list and hash tables.
> > >
> > > http://concurrencykit.org/
> > >
> > > Right now there are not enough distro's to make just linking against
> > system
> > > libs feasible, but I'd like to set it up in such a way (configure time
> > > option) so that we can encourage distro's to add a libck package in the
> > > future.
> >
> > So from the summit notes, it seems that dropping 32 bit is being proposed
> > because Concurrency Kit only supports 64bit platform. Is that correct?
> >
>
> I think there was a misunderstanding regarding this. I don't think there is
> a 64bit requirement on libck. But when dropping 32bit support came up
> related to this, it was suggested that we drop it anyway. So as far as I
> know, these are two separate issues. Maybe Brian G or Theo can confirm or
> deny that.
>
>
> >
> > I'm -1 on these changes until someone can explicitly list the current set
> > of supported platforms, and then the new set. It's too hard to figure out
> > what the new set of platforms will be otherwise, and I don't think it's
> > reasonable to ask people to do that. Once we have this nailed down, I'll
> be
> > +1 as long as Linux and OS X are on the final list.
> >
>
> From the website:
>
> Architectures
> ARM, Power, SPARCv9, x86, x86-64
>
> Compilersgcc, clang, icc, mingw32, mingw64, suncc
>
> I think the only arch that we support now that is not on that list is MIPS
> which is fairly new. I think if that is important to someone, and I assume
> it is, we should submit a patch to libck for it. That will probably be more
> difficult than the patch for ATS though, since we use GCC builtins and
> libck uses assembler for each arch. Also, FWIW, I don't know that we agreed
> that MIPS was a supported arch, or that someone just submitted a patch for
> it.
>
>
> > J
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message