[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:23:33 -0500
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
CC: musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SH sigcontext ABI is broken
On 06/24/2015 09:10 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
>
>> Nominally SH3 support remains in both the kernel and glibc. If it can
>> be established that multiple parties agree that there's really no one
>> left who cares about the old no-FPU sigcontext ABI on SH3, I will be
>> all for dropping it and unifying sigcontext.
>
> Note that right now we have BE and LE versions of *three* ABIs for SH in
> glibc (SH3 soft-float, SH4 soft-float, SH4 hard-float) (and as noted in
> this discussion, right now each would only work properly on a kernel with
> the corresponding configuration). See
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ABIList>.
>
> We can, of course, choose to declare processor or ABI variants no longer
> supported in glibc, much like we desupported i386 in glibc (requiring i486
> or later - albeit the official desupporting happening several years after
> i386 would no longer build) or removed support for non-EABI ARM. But
> since we don't have an SH maintainer at all in glibc at present, it's
> harder to make such a decision (whereas if an architecture maintainer
> decided some variants were no longer relevant, they could just remove
> support - make those variants give a configure-time error - in the absence
> of someone objecting and willing to take over maintaining support for
> those variants).
>
> I think the next glibc change likely to require action from each
> architecture's maintainer to avoid breaking the build may be Adhemerval's
> cancellation changes - so if no-one comes forward as SH maintainer to at
> least update SH for those changes when they are ready to go in, the build
> for SH will be broken and that will indicate, as per
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-06/msg00424.html>, that it may
> be time to remove the port from glibc.
Eh, ping me when that happens. I may at least do necessary changes to
keep it building. (Although I can only test glibc on qemu-system-sh4.)
Rob
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.
