Add AArch64 support

[ZhongRuoyu]

This brings AArch64 support and allows us to build binaries for bootstrapping glibc on any AArch64 Linux system.

The newly added AArch64 image is based on centos:7 as it ships glibc 2.17, the first glibc release to support AArch64 ¹.

Changes split into #32

I've also bumped most of the tools to a newer version that builds without additional patches/hacks. Notably:

• GCC is still on 9.5.0 because it still works, and later versions (that I tested) don't build on Debian Wheezy (the x86_64 image) because the host GCC is too old.
• Python is not on 3.12 or 3.13 because <stdatomic.h> is needed but not provided by Debian Wheezy's host toolchain.

The changes here have been tested on both architectures. The binaries built here can support building glibc 2.35 in centos:7 on AArch64 Linux.

Footnotes

1. https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.17 ↩

[MikeMcQuaid]

Sorry, I'd rather we didn't add aarch64 in here until we have CI to test it (and same for Portable Ruby).

[Bo98]

LGTM in general.

I'm happy to either:

• Merge most changes here except the first commit then open a second PR with that (given the other commits are architecture agnostic and are just version bumps etc), or;
• Hold the whole PR until we're ready for arm64

For Portable Ruby we have already have full arm64 support in the formulae (except adding the [email protected] dependency because it didn't exist yet) but have held off any CI workflow changes. Though the changes required there were minimal.

GitHub Actions arm64 support ETA is early 2025 (delayed from Q4 2024).

[ZhongRuoyu]

Merge most changes here except the first commit then open a second PR with that (given the other commits are architecture agnostic and are just version bumps etc)

Given the branch name, existing discussions, etc. of this PR, let me do the opposite: I split the architecture agnostic changes into #32.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Is AArch64 == arm64 on Linux? If so: to avoid confusion: can we try to always call it the same thing 😅.

[ZhongRuoyu]

Is AArch64 == arm64 on Linux? If so: to avoid confusion: can we try to always call it the same thing 😅.

Yes, they both refer to 64-bit ARM but AArch64 is more commonly used in Linux land (uname -m returns aarch64 as opposed to arm64 on macOS). Bottles for arm64 Linux are identified by aarch64_linux too. I'll try to disambiguate this in the future!

[MikeMcQuaid]

@ZhongRuoyu Thanks for explaining! Thought this was adding Another Linux ARM 😁

[Bo98]

Yeah we've yet to technically make aarch64 == arm64 in Homebrew/brew code. It just happens to work given most systems agree on the naming and we haven't needed to worry about compatibility of things between incompatible systems (macOS and Linux).