This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] PPC64: First in the series of patches implementing
Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
>
>> 1. Guarantee the new code does not export neither a new ABI nor a new API.
>
> Right now it does export an ABI (meaning both the library symbols, and the
> declarations in bits/math-vector.h that are expected to be interpreted by
> a future compiler as meaning, in accordance with the ABI document that
> needs to be written, that those library symbols are available -
> bits/math-vector.h being installed regardless of whether the library is
> built).
Agreed. That has to be modified in the next patch submission.
>> 2. A description on how to enable the code in order to test it without compiler
>> support. A public branch/repository is ideal.
>
> Sure, a branch is appropriate; the issues with lack of compiler support
> are issues for having the support on master. Then, maybe a wiki page that
> points to the glibc branch, the GCC branch (once available), the current
> work on the ABI, etc., so people can find all the relevant pieces.
Agreed.
> When a feature crosses multiple toolchain components (or involves the
> kernel as well as glibc, etc.), close cooperation between the people
> developing the features in those different components can be necessary -
> which means patch submissions for each component should include detailed
> information about the status of the work for the other components (and
> pointers to patches or such a wiki page, or CC the person working on the
> other components and ask them to describe the status, etc.).
Agreed.
>> 3. Review the patch in order to guarantee it does match the community
>> standards.
>
> This process is already ongoing. (But if the series ends up including
> sincos it will be especially important to look closely at compiler
> interactions there, given the issues that arose on x86_64 - the addition
> of sincos will need to come with a careful explanation of what the ABI is,
> which may or may not be the same as that used for x86_64, of why that's
> the right ABI for POWER, and of how the header declarations result in that
> ABI being used.)
Ack.
--
Tulio Magno