This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC 1/2] Add IFUNC support for MIPS (v5)
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Faraz Shahbazker <faraz dot shahbazker at imgtec dot com>, "libc-alpha\ at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 23:47:52 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] Add IFUNC support for MIPS (v5)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <DCB1C42372B1674B8F912A294CCB775A71684631 at BADAG02 dot ba dot imgtec dot org> <87k2tdn5xt dot fsf at googlemail dot com> <55BFC10F dot 2050503 at imgtec dot com> <87k2tapwq0 dot fsf at googlemail dot com> <55CE5217 dot 5020902 at imgtec dot com> <87io8f2gc9 dot fsf at googlemail dot com> <55D23368 dot 1070705 at imgtec dot com> <87io8dhegb dot fsf at googlemail dot com> <55D269D2 dot 2030208 at imgtec dot com> <87si7h6oyv dot fsf at googlemail dot com> <55D7A3C5 dot 8050600 at imgtec dot com> <87vbc7u1df dot fsf at googlemail dot com> <55E8C3BC dot 8040606 at imgtec dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1509032207030 dot 24787 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Faraz Shahbazker wrote:
>
>> glibc suite cross-tested on mips32 little endian, summary:
>> 324 FAIL
>> 1537 PASS
>> 9 XFAIL
>> All ifunc* tests are passing.
>
> You should have far fewer than 324 FAILs. You'll need to fix whatever the
> problem is with your test environment, or whatever has regressed since
> 2.22 release, in order to get meaningful results (similar to those
> described at <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.22>, so maybe on
> the order of 10 FAILs, but not much more). These results don't give any
> confidence in the patch.
>
> Has the binutils patch yet been checked in? Until the binutils patch is
> checked in and the ABI settled there doesn't seem much point in detailed
> review of the glibc changes.
This is my fault. I thought it would be much easier to review the
binutils patch after seeing how the dynamic linker would handle the
result. (And FWIW I did find it to be very useful.)
I can understand why we'd not want the glibc patch to go in ahead
of the binutils one, but I don't see why the binutils review has
to be completed before the glibc one starts. IMO settling the ABI
is much easier at the dynamic linker level rather than when reviewing
minutiae of bfd.
Thanks,
Richard