From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9456 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general,gmane.comp.hardware.lowrisc.devel Subject: Re: Interest in "Porting musl libc to RISC-V" project for GSoC 2016 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:06:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20160303220641.GL29662@port70.net> References: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457042821 18267 80.91.229.3 (3 Mar 2016 22:07:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 22:07:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lowrisc-dev@lists.lowrisc.org To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9469-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 03 23:06:58 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1abbOa-0002rE-CI for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 23:06:56 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5773 invoked by uid 550); 3 Mar 2016 22:06:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 5753 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2016 22:06:53 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: musl@lists.openwall.com, lowrisc-dev@lists.lowrisc.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9456 gmane.comp.hardware.lowrisc.devel:295 Archived-At: * Masanori Ogino [2016-03-03 16:43:31 +0900]: > I'm interested in porting musl to RISC-V arch project on > http://www.lowrisc.org/docs/gsoc-2016-ideas/ . I have read guidelines > for GSoC students and now I'm preparing to write up my proposal. > > I'd like to ask you for your advice to understand technical details > and improve my plan. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. > Thank you. last time iirc musl port was considered to be not large enough in itself for a gsoc project (i think it should not take more than 2 months but i don't know the current state of risc-v qemu/linux/gcc/etc) you might need to think additional things to work on. for musl, one idea is to invest extra time on testing. for risc-v i think polishing the toolchain and the docs would be useful. there are some basic problems with the risc-v software eco-system: there is no proper sysv psabi spec. (designing one would have been better than copying obsolete nonsense from mips as i can see in the glibc port.) nothing is upstream yet (gcc/linux/.. ports are maintained out of tree, working with the upstream community is important for many reasons). risc-v mailing lists are not public, only subscribers can see or participate in the discussions. (this is bad given that there are no specs, no upstreamed code so no source of information for outsiders.) for a musl port this means that we don't have abi stability guarantees, the port can stop working with the rest of the risc-v software stack. so for a successful port i think some scripts should be developed to build and test the latest risc-v things against musl (cross-toolchain, rootfs, etc) so we can keep it working.