Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:13:43 +0900 From: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: lowrisc-dev@...ts.lowrisc.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [GSoC2016] A proposal on porting musl to RISC-V Thank you for reviewing! 2016-03-19 15:37 GMT+09:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>: > Looks very good! Some comments: > > In regards to your schedule, do you plan to do both rv32 and rv64 (and > some 'subarch' ABI variants for both) in parallel from the beginning? > I think it might make sense to get one (whatever is easiest) to the > point where you can do some meaningful testing before working on them > all, but I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on what approach works > best for you. Yes, I planed to port 32-bit and 64-bit variant in parallel. However, now I think that porting one first and then doing the other is better since this approach can test the toolchain part earlier. > One thing to keep in mind (not sure if you're aware of it yet) is that > there's an in-progress port, now linked from the lowrisc.org project > ideas page, by another student who's interested in applying. Please > don't be discouraged by that; the reason I'm mentioning it is just > that I think anyone applying should either be planning to use the work > that's already done (being careful to properly document authorship) or > have a good explanation for why they're not going to. For your > proposal, this probably means greatly reducing the number of weeks to > be spent on getting the port basically up and running and dedicating > more time to the extended deliverables. I didn't aware of that port. Thanks! I will take a look at it and revise the proposal with my decision. > That's actually a good thing because I don't think you've allocated as > much time for the extended deliverables as they might take. For > example, for the vdso stuff, if you plan to do the actual kernel > patches, that's going to require familiarizing yourself with kernel > hacking if you're not already. And hooking it up to GCC for the > compiler to use with -mno-atomic (rather than just having libc use it > internally) requires some GCC hacking _and_ establishing some ABI for > the GCC-generated code to get to the vdso (probably via libc). Sure. I will reconsider the schedule. > Hope these comments help, and sorry for not getting back to you > sooner. I've had a busy week. No problem. This really helps me. -- Masanori Ogino
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.