Re: Remove sparcv8 support

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>]

> On 25 Oct 2016, at 12:34, Andreas Larsson <andreas@gaisler.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-10-24 19:42, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 24/10/2016 15:25, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 10:59 +0200, Andreas Larsson wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-20 21:47, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>>> The sparcv8 build is broken since GLIBC 2.23 due the new pthread
>>>>> barrier implementation [1] and since then there is no thread or
>>>>> interest on fixing it (Torvald has suggested some options on
>>>>> 2.23 release thread).  It won't help with both new pthread rdlock
>>>>> and cond implementation, although I would expect that it relies
>>>>> on same atomic primitive that was not present for pthread barrier.
>>>>> 
>>>>> AFAIK, recent commercial sparc chips from Oracle all supports
>>>>> sparcv9.  The only somewhat recent sparc chip with just sparcv8
>>>>> support is LEON4, which I really doubt it cares for glibc support.
>>>> 
>>>> Hi!
>>>> 
>>>> We do care about GLIBC support for many different LEON3 and LEON4
>>>> systems. GLIBC support for sparcv8 is important for us and it is
>>>> important for our customers. Both LEON3 and LEON4 are continuously used
>>>> in new hardware designs.
>>> 
>>> If you do care about it, it would be nice if you could (help) maintain
>>> sparcv8 (e.g., regularly testing most recent glibc on sparcv8, at the
>>> very least early during the freeze of each release).  This ensures that
>>> you won't get surprises such as this one, when nobody else is spending
>>> resources on it.
>>> 
>>>> We are not always using the latest version of GLIBC (the latest step we
>>>> took was to GLIBC 2.20), so unfortunately we missed this issue. We will
>>>> look into what the extent of the missing support is. Any pointers are
>>>> most welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have a link to the suggested options on the 2.23 release thread?
>>>> I dug around a bit in the archives, but did not find it.
>>>> 
>>>> (As a side note, most of the recent LEON3 and LEON4 chips have CAS
>>>> instruction support, but pure sparcv8 support is of course the baseline.)
>>> 
>>> Yes, the lack of CAS is the major problem I am aware of.  If the chips
>>> you mention do support CAS, then a patch that adds support for the
>>> CAS-based atomic operations in glibc would fix the barrier problem
>>> (because the generic barrier should just work).  The patch would also
>>> have to add configure bits or whatever would be appropriate so that
>>> glibc can figure out whether it is supposed to be run on a sparcv8 with
>>> or without CAS.
>>> 
>>> What about stopping support for plain sparcv8, and keeping to support
>>> sparcv8+CAS provided that we have a (group of) maintainer(s) for the
>>> latter that can tend to the minimal responsibilities of an arch
>>> maintainer and has the time to do that?
>> 
>> At least the build for sparcv9-linux-gnu with -mcpu=leon3 finishes,
>> although I am not sure if it correctly runs on leon processors.
>> And I seconded Tovarld's suggestion about stop maintaining plain
>> sparcv8 and set sparcv8+CAS as the base supported sparc32.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about this, but it is certainly better than
> throwing out sparcv8 outright.

>> As pointed out by David Miller, correct support for plain sparcv8
>> could really only be provided with kernel supported.  And when
>> it lands on kernel side, it should work effortlessly with a
>> sparcv8 + cas glibc build.
> 
> What do you mean by "work effortlessly with a sparcv8 + cas glibc
> build"?

Meaning that even if underlying hardware does not support correct CAS, kernel emulation will provide it and thus a default GLIBC sparc32 build will work regardless.