32-bit executables on aarch64?

[Mitchell Horne]

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 12:18 PM Glen Barber <gjb at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:48:50PM -0300, Mitchell Horne wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 7:45 PM Robert Clausecker <fuz at fuz.su> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > The intent is to test and develop software that only runs on
> > > armv7 (specifically, Mecrisp Stellaris, a Forth system written
> > > in ARM assembly).  This is best done natively.
> > >
> > > It's actually kinda annoying that no binary release tarballs
> > > are provided for armv7, so setting up the jail involves an
> > > annoying make world step.  For amd64 jails, I can just unpack
> > > the binary tarballs and fix the configuration and I'm good to go.
> > >
> >
> > This issue about lack of distribution sets for armv7 has come up a
> > couple of times. It wouldn't take much to start producing them
> > officially, so I plan to submit a patch for this once re@ is done with
> > the 13.0 release.
> >
>
> The problem is (was?) the armv6/armv7 bits used a specific KERNCONF for
> each SoC, which made it somewhat impossible to guarantee that
> distribution sets would "just work".  As I understand it now, this is no
> longer an issue.
>
> However, the release/Makefile has no real knowledge of how to build
> a release for armv7; the build is done using release.sh and a specific
> configuration file for each board.
>
> If the previous comment regarding KERNCONF is indeed no longer an issue,
> I will be happy to work with you on creating these distribution sets.
>

Sounds good, thanks Glen. As Warner points out this is no longer a
blocker, and should not pose a problem for userland anyway. I expect
the main consumer of these sets will be people setting up a quick
armv7 jail/chroot on arm64, e.g. for poudriere.

I'll reach out in a couple weeks.

Mitchell

> Glen
>