[fusl] Remove code for unsupported architectures

[fusl] Remove code for unsupported architectures

Only leave x86_64, x32 (ILP32 on 64 bit hardware), and aarch64 support.

R=phosek@chromium.org, viettrungluu@chromium.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/mojo/+/57766e235d177f9882db565c9f98c71c7e712268

[kulakowski, 2016-02-26 17:28:23]

Description was changed from

==========
[fusl] Remove code for unsupported architectures

Only leave x86_64, x32 (ILP32 on 64 bit hardware), and aarch64 support.

R=viettrungluu@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
[fusl] Remove code for unsupported architectures

Only leave x86_64, x32 (ILP32 on 64 bit hardware), and aarch64 support.

R=viettrungluu@chromium.org
==========

[kulakowski, 2016-02-26 17:28:23]

kulakowski@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jamesr@chromium.org, phosek@chromium.org

[kulakowski, 2016-02-26 17:30:03]

Trung's out, ptal.

I doubt we are running on ppc or mips. And if we do indeed have 64 bit as a line
in the sand, then removing them will let me simplify a lot more, i386 in
particular.

[jamesr, 2016-02-26 18:09:04]

On 2016/02/26 at 17:30:03, kulakowski wrote:
> Trung's out, ptal.
> 
> I doubt we are running on ppc or mips. And if we do indeed have 64 bit as a
line in the sand, then removing them will let me simplify a lot more, i386 in
particular.

Is the i386 code about running on x86 processors or running 32 bit programs on a
64 bit processor/OS?  I'm less certain that we want to take a strong stand on
the latter

[Petr Hosek, 2016-02-26 18:14:50]

On 2016/02/26 18:09:04, jamesr wrote:
> On 2016/02/26 at 17:30:03, kulakowski wrote:
> > Trung's out, ptal.
> > 
> > I doubt we are running on ppc or mips. And if we do indeed have 64 bit as a
> line in the sand, then removing them will let me simplify a lot more, i386 in
> particular.
> 
> Is the i386 code about running on x86 processors or running 32 bit programs on
a
> 64 bit processor/OS?  I'm less certain that we want to take a strong stand on
> the latter

It's primarily the first one. The second can be done either through i386 or
using x32 (ILP32).

[Petr Hosek, 2016-02-26 18:22:55]

It's pretty radical, but if we're certain that we never want to run on i386 (or
in IA32 emulation mode) then it lgtm.

[kulakowski, 2016-02-26 18:34:42]

On 2016/02/26 18:09:04, jamesr wrote:
> On 2016/02/26 at 17:30:03, kulakowski wrote:
> > Trung's out, ptal.
> > 
> > I doubt we are running on ppc or mips. And if we do indeed have 64 bit as a
> line in the sand, then removing them will let me simplify a lot more, i386 in
> particular.
> 
> Is the i386 code about running on x86 processors or running 32 bit programs on
a
> 64 bit processor/OS?  I'm less certain that we want to take a strong stand on
> the latter

The thing Petr said. I mentioned it in the commit message, too.

[kulakowski, 2016-02-26 18:36:06]

Description was changed from

==========
[fusl] Remove code for unsupported architectures

Only leave x86_64, x32 (ILP32 on 64 bit hardware), and aarch64 support.

R=viettrungluu@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
[fusl] Remove code for unsupported architectures

Only leave x86_64, x32 (ILP32 on 64 bit hardware), and aarch64 support.

R=phosek@chromium.org, viettrungluu@chromium.org

Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/mojo/+/57766e235d177f9882db565c9f9...
==========

[kulakowski, 2016-02-26 18:36:09]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
57766e235d177f9882db565c9f98c71c7e712268 (presubmit successful).