[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b50e6491-c5e7-a1bf-fdb4-48662b6e57ab@loongson.cn>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:26:21 +0800
From: Hongliang Wang <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: add loongarch64 port v8.
Hi, Rich
I'm sorry to ask again about the progress of the LoongArch64 patch.
The Alpine support LoongArch porting has stopped and waiting for musl
for a long time. see alpine TSC:
https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/tsc/-/issues/72
So we would like to ask about the approximate time and plan for patch
merge? Is it possible to be merged in the near future?
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Hongliang Wang
在 2023/12/8 下午4:23, Hongliang Wang 写道:
> Hi, Rich
>
> I'm sorry to trouble you again. we know that you are taking the
> time to review the code for Loongarch port. because there are
> multiple applications rely on musl, and recently many people ask
> us about the progress of musl support LoongArch, they are waiting
> for it for next work.
>
> So we would like to make bold to ask you about the approximate time
> and plan for merge Loongarch port?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Regards,
> Hongliang Wang
>
> 在 2023/11/20 下午2:11, Hongliang Wang 写道:
>> Hi, Rich
>>
>> The patch for modify musl dynamic linker has been merged to gcc,
>> and also backported to gcc-12 and gcc-13.
>>
>> The 0001-add-loongarch64-port-v8.patch is still as the latest patch.
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Hongliang Wang.
>>
>>
>> 在 2023/11/18 下午12:19, Jingyun Hua 写道:
>>> Hi,Rich
>>>
>>> I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time with my suggestion about the wrong
>>> dynamic connector name, and thank you for always taking the time to
>>> review the code for the musl LoongArch port.
>>>
>>> I carefully looked at the musl code and documentation again, LoongArch
>>> should follow the musl style and use naming consistent with other archs
>>> naming.
>>>
>>> and I saw that gcc also submitted a modification for this:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/637113.html
>>>
>>> This may be a good solution. After waiting for the modifications of gcc
>>> to be merged, we can add "-sp" to __loongarch_single_float based on the
>>> musl v8 patch, and at the same time, gcc will backport the
>>> modifications to gcc-12 and gcc-13.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jingyun Hua
>>>
>>> On 11/18/23 1:25 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 03:20:58PM +0800, Hongliang Wang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 在 2023/11/17 上午12:10, Rich Felker 写道:
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:54:44AM +0800, Hongliang Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your suggestion, I have modified the dynamic linker
>>>>>>> name according to the basic ABI types are specified in the ABI
>>>>>>> document of the LoongArch, and post
>>>>>>> 0001-add-loongarch64-port-v9.patch,
>>>>>>> as shown in the attachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on 0001-add-loongarch64-port-v8.patch,the modifications for
>>>>>>> 0001-add-loongarch64-port-v9.patch are as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> arch/loongarch64/reloc.h | 10 ++++++----
>>>>>>> configure | 4 +++-
>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch64/reloc.h b/arch/loongarch64/reloc.h
>>>>>>> index a4482b48..6907de8e 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch64/reloc.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch64/reloc.h
>>>>>>> @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
>>>>>>> -#ifdef __loongarch_soft_float
>>>>>>> -#define FP_SUFFIX "-sf"
>>>>>>> -#else
>>>>>>> -#define FP_SUFFIX ""
>>>>>>> +#if defined __loongarch_double_float
>>>>>>> +#define FP_SUFFIX "-lp64d"
>>>>>>> +#elif defined __loongarch_single_float
>>>>>>> +#define FP_SUFFIX "-lp64f"
>>>>>>> +#elif defined __loongarch_soft_float
>>>>>>> +#define FP_SUFFIX "-lp64s"
>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define LDSO_ARCH "loongarch64" FP_SUFFIX
>>>>>>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>>>>>>> index 55d179f1..93b06287 100755
>>>>>>> --- a/configure
>>>>>>> +++ b/configure
>>>>>>> @@ -673,7 +673,9 @@ trycppif __AARCH64EB__ "$t" &&
>>>>>>> SUBARCH=${SUBARCH}_be
>>>>>>> fi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if test "$ARCH" = "loongarch64" ; then
>>>>>>> -trycppif __loongarch_soft_float "$t" && SUBARCH=${SUBARCH}-sf
>>>>>>> +trycppif __loongarch_double_float "$t" && SUBARCH=${SUBARCH}-lp64d
>>>>>>> +trycppif __loongarch_single_float "$t" && SUBARCH=${SUBARCH}-lp64f
>>>>>>> +trycppif __loongarch_soft_float "$t" && SUBARCH=${SUBARCH}-lp64s
>>>>>>> printf "checking whether compiler support FCSRs... "
>>>>>>> echo "__asm__(\"movfcsr2gr \$t0,\$fcsr0\");" > "$tmpc"
>>>>>>> if $CC -c -o /dev/null "$tmpc" >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please review again, and point them out if any questions need to be
>>>>>>> modified, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you changing the ABI name for the existing one to something
>>>>>> different rather than just adding the missing ones, and doing it with
>>>>>> a name that's less descriptive ("-sf" is widely recognized as a
>>>>>> softfloat suffix, -lp64s not so much) and adding a redundant "lp64"
>>>>>> part to each one that does not seem to be part of distinguishing the
>>>>>> float ABI?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>> We change the ABI name based on the LoongArch ELF ABI specification,
>>>>> which can be seen:
>>>>> https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/LoongArch-ELF-ABI-EN.html
>>>>>
>>>>> (Table 7. Base ABI Types.)
>>>>> The specification defines lp64d, lp64s, lp64f:
>>>>> lp64d indicates uses 64-bit FPRs, d indicates double float.
>>>>> lp64s indicates uses 32-bit FPRs, s indicates single float.
>>>>> lp64f indicates uses no FPRs, f indicates soft float.
>>>>>
>>>>> The specification does not define sf, so I removed it.
>>>>> The define in musl is also consistent with gcc.
>>>>
>>>> Please use naming consistent with what we do for other archs in musl
>>>> for a proposal to be included in musl. This means:
>>>>
>>>> - Subarch should be empty for the default (I assume that means
>>>> hardware floating point with full double precision) ABI that you
>>>> expect most Linux-compatible systems to be using.
>>>>
>>>> - Don't include extraneous stuff like "lp64" that's universal to the
>>>> architecture in the subarch name. There isn't a need to align these
>>>> names with anything outside of musl.
>>>>
>>>> Please stick with what has already been approved, with changes
>>>> well-motivated -- in this case, that means just proposing a name for
>>>> the single-precision subarch. My preference would be to use "-sp" like
>>>> we did for riscv64.
>>>>
>>>> The reason this has taken so long to get merged is that *every* time I
>>>> set aside some time to apply it, there are new gratuitous changes,
>>>> many of which seem to be motivated by style musl does not follow. I'd
>>>> like to merge precisely what I reviewed last time, with the gratuitous
>>>> changes I found reverted, plus the new subarch/ldso name for single
>>>> precision. Does this sound good?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
