[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMo8Bf+2CB87JZVk1AqqydBvL+Hrz-rk9geaAipy6mrp8bt_8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 10:39:18 -0700
From: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/1] xtensa: add port
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 11:41 AM Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:26 AM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 08:30:57AM -0700, Max Filippov wrote:
> > > I believe that in accordance with how Tensilica treats xtensa cores,
> > > core configuration should be one of the linkage boundaries, along with
> > > the FDPIC/non-FDPIC and call0/windowed. So ldso names would look
> > > like xtensa-dc233c-fdpic.
> >
> > Is there actually anything about the dc233c cpu variant that makes up
> > part of the linkage boundary?
>
> It's a particular feature set, instruction set and instruction encoding rules.
> Toolchain components will be configured for this core and there's no plan
> to support linking objects built for different configurations.
I thought about it for a bit and it seems to me that adding configuration
name to the ABI tag makes both of the following possible:
- a range of "standard" configurations can be defined. The end users may
choose a configuration that is compatible with their hardware and use
a toolchain with that tag.
- but they don't have to. If they prefer having their own ABI tag they're
also free to do it.
Either way the decision about the compatibility is left to the end user and
when there's no compatibility with the standard variants or such
compatibility is not desired there's still a way to get a working system
without a name conflict.
--
Thanks.
-- Max
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.
