Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Matias A. Fonzo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

I am pleased to announce the release of darkcrusade (2017Jan05).

Darkcrusade is a set of cross compilers built upon on the standard C
library "musl".

Darkcrusade consists of two separate phases. The first phase, where a
cross-compiler for the native architecture is created, the second phase
where the produced cross-compiler is used to create other compilers for
the different supported architectures.

The homepage is at http://www.dragora.org

The sources can be downloaded from
http://rsync.dragora.org/current/sources/compilers/darkcrusade_2017Jan05/

See also http://dragora.org/repo.fsl/wiki?name=Mirrors

Version 2017Jan05 - 6 January 2017

    - Binutils 2.26.1.

    - Linux-libre 4.4.39 (headers).

    - GCC 6.3.0.

        - GMP 6.1.2.

        - MPFR 3.1.5 (patch level 2):

        - MPC 1.0.3.

        - ISL 0.18.

    - Musl 1.1.16.

The following architectures are supported:
armv7hl, armv8hl, i586, microblaze, mips, powerpc, x32, x86_64.

Please send bug reports and suggestions to dragora-users@nongnu.org

Links:

http://www.musl-libc.org
https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/mpfr?revision=11043&view=revision
https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/mpfr?revision=11069&view=revision


Regards,
Matias Fonzo, darkcrusade author and maintainer.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Szabolcs Nagy]

* Matias A. Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> [2017-01-06 17:20:05 -0300]:
> 
> The following architectures are supported:
> armv7hl, armv8hl, i586, microblaze, mips, powerpc, x32, x86_64.
> 

what is the difference between armv7hl and armv8hl?

(there should not be many differences between armv8-a and armv7-a
isa in aarch32 execution state and armv8-a is backward compatible
with armv7-a)

Re: Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Matias A. Fonzo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 688 bytes --]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:45:18 +0100
Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:

> * Matias A. Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> [2017-01-06 17:20:05 -0300]:
> > 
> > The following architectures are supported:
> > armv7hl, armv8hl, i586, microblaze, mips, powerpc, x32, x86_64.
> >   
> 
> what is the difference between armv7hl and armv8hl?

The only difference is that armv8hl is tuned for cortex-a8...
 
> (there should not be many differences between armv8-a and armv7-a
> isa in aarch32 execution state and armv8-a is backward compatible
> with armv7-a)

Thanks! -- I've removed the target file for armv7hl.

P.S: I'm interested in the new architectures supported by Musl, too.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [musl] Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Szabolcs Nagy]

* Matias A. Fonzo <selk-+HikzN7WxwFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> [2017-01-06 20:31:34 -0300]:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:45:18 +0100
> Szabolcs Nagy <nsz-4P1ElwuDYu6sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> > * Matias A. Fonzo <selk-+HikzN7WxwFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> [2017-01-06 17:20:05 -0300]:
> > > 
> > > The following architectures are supported:
> > > armv7hl, armv8hl, i586, microblaze, mips, powerpc, x32, x86_64.
> > >   
> > 
> > what is the difference between armv7hl and armv8hl?
> 
> The only difference is that armv8hl is tuned for cortex-a8...
>  

cortex-a8 is an armv7-a core, i think only 64bit arm cores
support armv8-a isa (yes the naming is confusing).

> > (there should not be many differences between armv8-a and armv7-a
> > isa in aarch32 execution state and armv8-a is backward compatible
> > with armv7-a)
> 
> Thanks! -- I've removed the target file for armv7hl.
> 

i think you should keep the armv7hl and remove the armv8hl one.

> P.S: I'm interested in the new architectures supported by Musl, too.
> 

Re: Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Matias A. Fonzo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1517 bytes --]

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 15:57:38 +0100
Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:

> * Matias A. Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> [2017-01-06 20:31:34 -0300]:
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:45:18 +0100
> > Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:
> >   
> > > * Matias A. Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> [2017-01-06 17:20:05
> > > -0300]:  
> > > > 
> > > > The following architectures are supported:
> > > > armv7hl, armv8hl, i586, microblaze, mips, powerpc, x32, x86_64.
> > > >     
> > > 
> > > what is the difference between armv7hl and armv8hl?  
> > 
> > The only difference is that armv8hl is tuned for cortex-a8...
> >    
> 
> cortex-a8 is an armv7-a core, i think only 64bit arm cores
> support armv8-a isa (yes the naming is confusing).
> 
> > > (there should not be many differences between armv8-a and armv7-a
> > > isa in aarch32 execution state and armv8-a is backward compatible
> > > with armv7-a)  
> > 
> > Thanks! -- I've removed the target file for armv7hl.
> >   
> 
> i think you should keep the armv7hl and remove the armv8hl one.

Are you sure?:

armv8hl has the following options for GCC:

"--with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard --with-fpu=neon
--with-tune=cortex-a8"

meanwhile armv7hl was:

"--with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard --with-fpu=neon"

'armv8hl' is like "it can run on the armv7-a but armv8-a has the honor".

This is confusing, so.. only 64bit is capable of armv8-a?.
 
> > P.S: I'm interested in the new architectures supported by Musl, too.
> >   
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Szabolcs Nagy]

* Matias A. Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> [2017-01-07 19:55:38 -0300]:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 15:57:38 +0100
> Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:
> > * Matias A. Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> [2017-01-06 20:31:34 -0300]:
> > > Thanks! -- I've removed the target file for armv7hl.
> > >   
> > 
> > i think you should keep the armv7hl and remove the armv8hl one.
> 
> Are you sure?:
> 
> armv8hl has the following options for GCC:
> 
> "--with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard --with-fpu=neon
> --with-tune=cortex-a8"
> 
> meanwhile armv7hl was:
> 
> "--with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard --with-fpu=neon"
> 
> 'armv8hl' is like "it can run on the armv7-a but armv8-a has the honor".
> 
> This is confusing, so.. only 64bit is capable of armv8-a?.

in armvX-a the X is an architecture version (the -a means
application profile, there are m and r profiles as well)

the latest architecture version is 8 (it has revisions 8.1,
8.2 and 8.3 introducing various extensions)

the armv8-a architecture has two execution states: aarch32
and aarch64, the former is 32bit and backward compatible with
armv7-a, the later is 64bit.

i think an armv8-a implemetation has to support both aarch32
and aarch64 execution states (so an armv8-a core can run
64bit and 32bit binaries, just like a 64bit x86 cpu)

the 32bit and 64bit toolchains needed different naming since
they are clearly not abi compatible, for 32bit the old scheme
was kept: armv8 in a triplet or elf platform string means 32bit,
while the 64bit toolchain naming uses aarch64 now (various
projects did not like that and call it arm64 which is visually
easy to confuse with amd64 and trips up scripts that matched
arm* for 32bit arm so there is a lot of mess around naming).

cortex-aX is a micro-architecture, it's a cpu core design that
conforms to an arm architecture version (designed by arm, there
are other cores not desiged by arm), the X is pretty random,
cortex-a8 happens to be an old armv7-a core. (cores are usually
part of a soc that is designed by some vendor who sells the chip)

(older arm cores were called arm7xx, arm8xx,.. arm11xx with
random xx to add further confusion when somebody talks about
arm7 or arm8 cpus.)

so calling a cortex-a8 tuned toolchain armv8hl is misleading
(and not very useful to maintain separately if you have a generic
armv7-a toolchain anyway: in linux distro land you want a generic
toolchain so the built binaries are useful for many devices, in
the mobile world binaries are often tuned for a particular
microarchitecture because the vendor provides those with the
device)

Re: Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Matias A. Fonzo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3133 bytes --]

Hi Szabolcs,

I'm sorry I did not come back quickly to you.

I've made the change[1].

[1] http://dragora.org/repo.fsl/info/7918f35cc0bfc75d

I want to say thanks for all of your information, asking to you about
aarch64.  What options for GCC is needed to have aarch64?.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 03:10:07 +0100
Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:

> * Matias A. Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> [2017-01-07 19:55:38 -0300]:
> > On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 15:57:38 +0100
> > Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:  
> > > * Matias A. Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> [2017-01-06 20:31:34
> > > -0300]:  
> > > > Thanks! -- I've removed the target file for armv7hl.
> > > >     
> > > 
> > > i think you should keep the armv7hl and remove the armv8hl one.  
> > 
> > Are you sure?:
> > 
> > armv8hl has the following options for GCC:
> > 
> > "--with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard --with-fpu=neon
> > --with-tune=cortex-a8"
> > 
> > meanwhile armv7hl was:
> > 
> > "--with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard --with-fpu=neon"
> > 
> > 'armv8hl' is like "it can run on the armv7-a but armv8-a has the
> > honor".
> > 
> > This is confusing, so.. only 64bit is capable of armv8-a?.  
> 
> in armvX-a the X is an architecture version (the -a means
> application profile, there are m and r profiles as well)
> 
> the latest architecture version is 8 (it has revisions 8.1,
> 8.2 and 8.3 introducing various extensions)
> 
> the armv8-a architecture has two execution states: aarch32
> and aarch64, the former is 32bit and backward compatible with
> armv7-a, the later is 64bit.
> 
> i think an armv8-a implemetation has to support both aarch32
> and aarch64 execution states (so an armv8-a core can run
> 64bit and 32bit binaries, just like a 64bit x86 cpu)
> 
> the 32bit and 64bit toolchains needed different naming since
> they are clearly not abi compatible, for 32bit the old scheme
> was kept: armv8 in a triplet or elf platform string means 32bit,
> while the 64bit toolchain naming uses aarch64 now (various
> projects did not like that and call it arm64 which is visually
> easy to confuse with amd64 and trips up scripts that matched
> arm* for 32bit arm so there is a lot of mess around naming).
> 
> cortex-aX is a micro-architecture, it's a cpu core design that
> conforms to an arm architecture version (designed by arm, there
> are other cores not desiged by arm), the X is pretty random,
> cortex-a8 happens to be an old armv7-a core. (cores are usually
> part of a soc that is designed by some vendor who sells the chip)
> 
> (older arm cores were called arm7xx, arm8xx,.. arm11xx with
> random xx to add further confusion when somebody talks about
> arm7 or arm8 cpus.)
> 
> so calling a cortex-a8 tuned toolchain armv8hl is misleading
> (and not very useful to maintain separately if you have a generic
> armv7-a toolchain anyway: in linux distro land you want a generic
> toolchain so the built binaries are useful for many devices, in
> the mobile world binaries are often tuned for a particular
> microarchitecture because the vendor provides those with the
> device)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [musl] Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Szabolcs Nagy]

* Matias A. Fonzo <selk-+HikzN7WxwFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> [2017-01-10 18:15:41 -0300]:
> I want to say thanks for all of your information, asking to you about
> aarch64.  What options for GCC is needed to have aarch64?.

aarch64 gcc does not need additional target specific
config options to work, only --target=aarch64-linux-musl

however it might make sense to build the toolchain with
 --enable-fix-cortex-a53-835769
 --enable-fix-cortex-a53-843419
(workarounds for bugs affecting certain cortex-a53 cores)
a general purpose distro is better to be safe.

Re: [musl] Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Matias A. Fonzo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 23:51:19 +0100
Szabolcs Nagy <nsz-4P1ElwuDYu6sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> * Matias A. Fonzo <selk-+HikzN7WxwFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> [2017-01-10 18:15:41 -0300]:
> > I want to say thanks for all of your information, asking to you
> > about aarch64.  What options for GCC is needed to have aarch64?.  
> 
> aarch64 gcc does not need additional target specific
> config options to work, only --target=aarch64-linux-musl
> 
> however it might make sense to build the toolchain with
>  --enable-fix-cortex-a53-835769
>  --enable-fix-cortex-a53-843419
> (workarounds for bugs affecting certain cortex-a53 cores)
> a general purpose distro is better to be safe.

Aha!  Please can you take a look to this file:

  http://dragora.org/repo.fsl/artifact/41515ff72439b0bc

It's correct?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [musl] Darkcrusade 2017Jan05 (cross compiler set)

[Szabolcs Nagy]

* Matias A. Fonzo <selk-+HikzN7WxwFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> [2017-01-10 20:44:29 -0300]:
> Aha!  Please can you take a look to this file:
> 
>   http://dragora.org/repo.fsl/artifact/41515ff72439b0bc
> 
> It's correct?

looks good