[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1376569989.2737.34@driftwood>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 07:33:09 -0500
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Build system adjustments for subarchs
On 08/13/2013 08:06:17 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for some ideas on a problem in the build system: how to
> cleanly share asm between subarchs. The problem is this: ARM, and
> possibly other archs in the future, has multiple dimensions of
> subarch: little-endian(default) vs big-endian, and
> fpu-agnostic(default) vs hardfloat. The asm requirements are:
>
> - MOST asm is shared by all subarchs.
>
> - A small amount of asm (for now, just memcpy) is endian-specific but
> has nothing to do with floating point ABI.
>
> - A fairly significant amount of asm in the future will be hard-float
> specific (optimized math functions and floating point environment)
> but has nothing to do with endianness.
If there's no actual overlap it sounds like you're describing search
paths you stick stuff at the front of. Have hardfloat specific .S bits
in one dir, differently endian stuff in another dir, and the truly
agnostic stuff with default versions of everything in a third, then
thread a search path through 'em.
> What I don't like about this approach is that the logic for the names
> to use in steps 1-3 has to go either in the configure script or the
> makefile. The makefile is not intended to have this sort of arch
> logic, but instead to derive the logic from the source tree structure.
How you get a makefile to do _anything_ is not my department. (Horrible
language, make. Imperative or declarative, PICK ONE.)
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.
