On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 4:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I would not stand in the way of dropping HP-UX and IA64 support as of
> >> v16. (I do still feel that HPPA is of interest, to keep us honest
> >> about spinlock support --- but that dual-stack arrangement that IA64
> >> uses is surely not part of anyone's future.)
>
> > I tried to find everything relating to HP-UX, aCC, ia64 and hppa. Or
> > do you still want to keep the hppa bits for NetBSD (I wasn't sure if
> > your threat to set up a NetBSD/hppa system was affected by the
> > hardware failure you mentioned)?
>
> No, the hardware failure is that the machine's SCSI controller seems
> to be fried, thus internal drives no longer accessible. I have a
> working NetBSD-current installation on an external USB drive, and plan
> to commission it as a buildfarm animal once NetBSD 10 is officially
> branched. It'll be a frankencritter of the first order, because
> USB didn't exist when the machine was built, but hey...
OK, here's a new attempt, this time leaving the hppa bits in. The
main tricksy bit is where s_lock.h is simplified a bit by moving the
fully inline GCC-only hppa support up a bit (it was handled a bit
weirdly with some #undef jiggery-pokery before to share stuff between
aCC and GCC), making the diff a little hard to follow. Does this make
sense? It might also be possible to drop one of __hppa and __hppa__
where they are both tested (not clear to me if that is an aCC/GCC
thing). I have no idea if this'll actually work (or ever worked) on
NetBSD/hppa... if it comes to it I could try to boot it under
qemu-system-hppa if that's what it takes, but it may be easy for you
to test...
