Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:18:54 +0100 From: Waldemar Brodkorb <wbx@...nadk.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: buildroot@...ldroot.org Subject: Re: Re: [Buildroot] cortex-m support? Hi Rob, Rob Landley wrote, > > I am wondering why you don't cc me or any uclibc related list? > > I cc'd the buildroot list, which only has uClibc-based cortex-m support > at the moment. Why do you suppose I did that? That is not completely true, OpenADK has support for it, too. But I am not sure you declare OpenADK a real project. It seems to me that in your definition of a open source project, the people behind must either get money for their work or the project needs millions of installations. > Did you want me to send it to the uclibc.org mailing list which hasn't > had a single post this month except your announcement of your fork's > release? No, I would like to see your suggestions and patches on the uClibc-ng mailing list: http://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel/ > Has your fork solved the locales problem? > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2015-June/049000.html I don't support the binary locale package. I am not very interested in locale support. > Has your fork solved the nptl issue? > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2008-September/020151.html > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2008-September/020169.html > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2008-September/020171.html > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2008-October/041201.html Not sure. But in uClibc-ng there is Linuxthreads support for every supported architecture (excluding METAG) and NPTL for the global players. I added NPTL support from GNU libc recently, but Microblaze seems indeed bitrotted inside GNU libc as nobody is doing any test suite runs. https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-07/msg00640.html There is even missing DWARF2 support in GCC upstream, so I think it is even not compile time tested. > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2006-March/014811.html > > Do you have a sane "make defconfig" that lets people build uClibc > without learning what over a hundred individual config options do and > making decisions about whether or not they need each one? This issue > doesn't even come _up_ with musl, it fundamentally avoids most of the > structural problems that strangled uClibc development, by design. I regulary cleanup needless options and keep good defaults. The number of options get lower. I still like the idea of being able to build a complete toolchain without thread support or other stuff disabled. I will try to remove more options in the future. > > You still believe uClibc projects should die? > > No, I believe uClibc _already_ died. I believe this because I was there. Yes, uClibc is dead. uClibc-ng is alive! > But cortex-m still only supports pthreads in 2016 and even that's buggy > in ways that were fixed out of tree quite a while ago. The release I > fished this bugfix out of is a year old. I don't have their source > control to see how old the fix really is, but emcraft's "preferred" > kernel (https://github.com/emcraftsystems/linux-emcraft) forked off from > mainline 7 years ago, and cortex-m support for Linux is their core > business, so there's a guess how long ago somebody actually _using_ this > might have noticed it. So, may be you can prepare a patch for the uClibc-ng list? Or do you want to see the bug open for another year? > In case you really _don't_ know the history, let me walk you through how > the uClibc project died, going back through about ten years of > accumulated scar tissue, and why three different maintainers before you > failed to fix it. Thanks for the history walkthrough. Do you know why Bernhard is so unresponsive and more about the time shortly after his last release? > You came into a project I'd pushed for 10 years and started collecting > trivial bugfixes without addressing any of the serious architectural > issues (like needlessly duplicated per-architecture headers snapshot > from ancient glibc versions, with a #define pretending to be glibc (musl > doesn't) and declaring all sorts of stuff the library doesn't actually > implement). And you're wondering why I have a more pessimistic outlook > of your chances than you do? You have to start somewhere, otherwise nothing happens. > The big elephant in the development room was the NPTL code, and cortex-m > is still using pthreads, not nptl, and WITHIN that pthreads mess is _old > and _new versions of thread wait for supporting 2.2 kernels. (The > menuconfig option has been replaced with _old and _new suffixes on the > functions. Great.) Linuxthreads.new is gone. uClibc-ng only support Linuxthreads and NPTL. > You've said that your reason for supporting uclibc-ng was for two > architectures, ARC and Xtensa: > > http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/05/30/1 > That is why _you_ care. I personally think that adding support for those > to musl-libc would be a far better use of your time, but it's not my job > to tell you want to do. It's your hobby time. Do what you like with it. > Just don't expect me to take you seriously after ten years of this. That is not entirely right. I care for every supported uClibc-ng architecture. uClibc-ng might be used for different use cases: - old non mainstream architectures like lm32, avr32, cris, fr-v, .. - noMMU systems like arm, coldfire, bfin, c6x, .. - architectures not supported by any other C library like arc, xtensa, nds32, h8300, .. - vintage unix hardware like SGI O2, Sparcstations, ... See my table which architectures are not supported by musl/glibc: http://uclibc-ng.org/wiki/matrix Indeed Max has started a musl implementaton for Xtensa: https://github.com/jcmvbkbc/musl-xtensa The Synopsys people trying to add support for GNU libc. But even then uClibc-ng is always a good choice for regression testing and testing between the different C libraries. > I cc'd buildroot. That is a real project, which still uses uClibc for > the targets Rich hasn't gotten around to porting musl to yet. I cc'd > them so they would be aware of the issue. I could have just sent it to > the musl list, but chose to inform buildroot as well. Other real projects use uClibc-ng, too. So may be next time you sent it to our list directly ;) best regards Waldemar
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.