Remove sparcv8 support

[Andreas Larsson]

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"?

Best regards,
Andreas Larsson