Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:05:07 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl 0.9.8 released On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:51:16PM -0800, Isaac Dunham wrote: > > > -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? Yes, probably the floating-point headers are the main places: fenv.h, float.h, and math.h. > > > -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). This is fairly comparable to the mips1 issue and the need for ll/sc emulation by the kernel. i386 is just fundamentally lacking in a way that makes multi-tasking/multi-threading not workable with the POSIX apis for it. The kernel should be emulating 'lock cmpxchg', like it does ll/sc for mips1, and if it did, 386 would work fine. But apparently nobody cares anyway.. > 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... This doesn't make any sense to me. > > > 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) :-) Rich
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.