Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:51:16 -0800 From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl 0.9.8 released On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:39:48 -0500 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 06:43:29PM -0800, Isaac Dunham wrote: > > arm: arm(eb), armel > > mips: mips(32), mipsel(32) > > microblaze: microblaze > > (What's the status of microblazeel/microblazele? configure looks not > > to recognize it...) > > It should work aside from configure not recognizing it. But I don't > think it's been tested. > > > ppc: powerpc(32) > > > > Total arches: > > 6 > > Total subarches (distinct ABIs): > > 8-10 (depending on status of microblazeel and ABI compatability of > > armhf with armel) > > > > -planned subarches: mipsel32-sf, mips32-sf > > My idea for the names would be something like: mips, mipsel, mips-sf, > mipsel-sf, ... > Basically, the full arch name would be something along the lines of: > > arch[el|eb][-abivariant] > > which could be represented as $(ARCH)$(ENDIAN)$(ABIVARIANT), where > only $(ARCH)$(ABIVARIANT) and $(ARCH) should be needed to search for > asm files. But additional considerations need to be made for how the > main arch dir with bits headers and internal headers would be > selected. I don't think we want to duplicate entire arch trees for > subarchs, but I also don't see how subarchs can get by with using the > same set of headers unless we rely on the compiler to predefine macros > that distinguish them. This is rather ugly but we're already partially > relying on it for endianness varants. Where would the headers need to differ by subarch? I'm guessing this is mainly stuff like fenv? > In the end, it might simply be the cleanest to just duplicate the > trees, but use symlinks to eliminate most of the duplicate files. > However, the interaction of that with install rules would have to be > considered and the install rules might need revision. <snip> > > -unsupported subarches: i386 > > ?? The 80386 processor, as opposed to 80486. # On x86, make sure we don't have incompatible instruction set # extensions enabled by default. This is bad for making static binaries. # We cheat and use i486 rather than i386 because i386 really does not # work anyway (issues with atomic ops). Also, I can't seem to find it now, but somewhere I heard that upstream gcc and/or glibc with the "i386-linux-*" triplet has some incompatability with "i486-linux-*". IIRC, I heard that some distros patch this to treat i386-linux-* as if it meant i486. But, I can't trace the source for that claim, so don't count on it... > > It seems Debian's using aarch64-* for ARMv8. > > Yes, 64-bit arm is a new arch and it seems they used the name aarch64 > instead of arm64 due to arm* being interpreted as 32-bit arm by many > things.. > ie, due to the insane number of ABIs and triplets that ARM has? arm (bigendian/OABI), armeabi (bigendian: armeb), armel (littleendian variant of EABI), armhf (armel + vfp3) -- Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.