Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 22:02:26 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, lowrisc-dev@...ts.lowrisc.org Subject: Re: Interest in "Porting musl libc to RISC-V" project for GSoC 2016 On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:54:44AM +0900, Masanori Ogino wrote: > Hello, > > 2016-03-04 7:06 GMT+09:00 Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>: > > last time iirc musl port was considered to be > > not large enough in itself for a gsoc project > > (i think it should not take more than 2 months > > but i don't know the current state of risc-v > > qemu/linux/gcc/etc) > > > > you might need to think additional things to work on. > > > > for musl, one idea is to invest extra time on testing. > > > > for risc-v i think polishing the toolchain and the docs > > would be useful. > > Agreed. > > > there are some basic problems with the risc-v software > > eco-system: > > > > there is no proper sysv psabi spec. (designing one would > > have been better than copying obsolete nonsense from mips > > as i can see in the glibc port.) > > Hmm, ABI is an important factor for the proposal, but I probably won't > have enough time to invent a new ABI and implement it during this > summer... > Anyway, would you give me any well-designed psABI (or non-SysV-psABI) examples? I don't think you'd need to change/redesign the ABI (since it's already being used on FreeBSD, presumably whatever current Linux kernel port exists, and maybe other targets, and didn't look bad when I looked at it), but a nice clean psABI document would be nice to have. > > nothing is upstream yet (gcc/linux/.. ports are > > maintained out of tree, working with the upstream > > community is important for many reasons). > > Agreed with the importance of merging to upstream. > > > risc-v mailing lists are not public, only subscribers > > can see or participate in the discussions. (this is > > bad given that there are no specs, no upstreamed code > > so no source of information for outsiders.) > > I think it would be great if archives are public. I don't know the > reason why the project decide to do so. Yes, that would be really nice. > > for a musl port this means that we don't have abi > > stability guarantees, the port can stop working with > > the rest of the risc-v software stack. so for a > > successful port i think some scripts should be developed > > to build and test the latest risc-v things against musl > > (cross-toolchain, rootfs, etc) so we can keep it working. > > Indeed it's great to have an automated testing infrastructure. I really love CI. > > Thank you for your suggestion! I have a few other ideas I'm going to post to the list for elements that could be incorporated into proposals. I'll follow up as a separate email. 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.