This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [patches] Re: RISC-V glibc port, v5
- From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt dot com>
- To: joseph at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Andrew Waterman <andrew at sifive dot com>, Darius Rad <darius at bluespec dot com>, dj at redhat dot com, patches at groups dot riscv dot org
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:58:52 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [patches] Re: RISC-V glibc port, v5
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:58:15 PST (-0800), joseph@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
I believe we've taken into account all the feedback, and are now below 20 test
Still missing an ldd_rewrite_script setting as mentioned as needed for
multi-ABI support in
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-01/msg00008.html> and
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-01/msg00521.html>.
Sorry about that, it must have slipped through the cracks. I think this should do it
$ cat sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/ldd-rewrite.sed
s_^\(RTLDLIST=\)\(.*lib/\)\(ld-linux\)-\(riscv64\)-\(lp64\)\(d*\)\(\.so\.[0-9.]*\)_\1"\2\3-\4-\5\7 \2\3-\4-\5d\7"_
with the idea being that I want to produce
RTLDLIST="/lib/ld-linux-riscv64-lp64.so.1 /lib/ld-linux-riscv64-lp64d.so.1"
from any RTLDLIST that we input. It's written such that we can easily extend
this to support rv32 later, but doesn't do so now.
The most important thing to figure out at this point - and then stick to
(changing your mind after the start of the freeze is not a good way to get
a port into 2.27) - is the choice of exactly what architecture and ABI
combinations are supported by the port, as that determines what changes
are needed to have an internally consistent port without lots of
untestable code for unsupported combinations, and a significant proportion
of issues from the patch reviews of multiple versions of the RISC-V port
have been inconsistencies regarding what is supposed to be supported
(especially when the choice has changed between versions of the port,
without the changes being carried out consistently through the whole patch
series).
Yes, sorry about that -- this isn't how I'd like to do things, there's just a
lot of people with a lot of constraints and I'm trying to make everyone about
the same amount upset with me. We're currently trying to get a run of the
rv64imac/lp64 testsuite through, and I'm aiming to submit another patch set
tonight that:
* Removes all rv32 support.
* Fixes all the issues that have been raised in response to the v5, at least as
well as I can.
* Contains build-many-glibcs.py support for rv64imafdc/lp64d and rv64imafdc/lp64.
* Either contains build-many-glibcs.py support for rv64imac/lp64, or removes
our soft-float support entirely.
* Contains test results for the configurations supported in
build-many-glibcs.py.
Sorry for all the trouble!