From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9517 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general,gmane.comp.hardware.lowrisc.devel Subject: Re: musl risc-v port & gsoc - resources & ideas Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 17:33:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20160306223327.GW9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20160304035811.GA10218@brightrain.aerifal.cx> 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 1457303624 5020 80.91.229.3 (6 Mar 2016 22:33:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 22:33:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lowrisc-dev@lists.lowrisc.org To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9530-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Mar 06 23:33:44 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 1achF9-0006qb-Tf for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 23:33:44 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 3931 invoked by uid 550); 6 Mar 2016 22:33:41 -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 3913 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2016 22:33:41 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160304035811.GA10218@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9517 gmane.comp.hardware.lowrisc.devel:307 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:58:12PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > Since a port of musl to a new arch does not actually involve much > code, mainly attention to detail to make sure that all of the type > definitions/ABI/etc. are correct, I think that for a proposal to be > big enough to make a reasonable GSoC project, it should go beyond just > the basic porting. Some ideas for things to include would be: > > - Improvement of porting documentation > > - Feedback/patches on where there's too much redundancy between ports > and how to reduce it (i.e. making improvements to musl that reduce > the amount of code/headers needed for a new port). > > - Patches for musl-cross and/or musl-cross-make (build systems for > generating a cross-compiler toolchain) to make it easy to build a > musl/riscv cross compiler. > > - Optimizing performance-critical code like memcpy or floating point > math functions for riscv. > > - Improving test coverage, especially for things that are easy to get > wrong in a new port. > > I'll follow up with more ideas if I think of any. > > Students interested in the project are welcome (and encouraged!) to > ask questions and discuss here on the musl list. Obviously everyone > should have in mind writing their own proposals but I want everyone to > have access to knowledge/resources/community for ideas. One other thing I forgot: I believe the riscv ABIs use IEEE quad for long double, but musl has very poor support for quad right now, Most functions just call out to the double functions; only a few that critically need to be exact actually do the right thing. Improving this situation is important for making riscv and other archs (aarch64, mips64) that use quad polished/first-class. Also the lowrisc-dev cc seems to have gotten dropped on these emails which are very relevant: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/06/17 http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/06/24 http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/06/25 Rich