From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with SMTP id 676ace03 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:50:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27831 invoked by uid 550); 3 Feb 2020 14:50:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 27813 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2020 14:50:42 -0000 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:50:30 -0500 From: Rich Felker To: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20200203145030.GP1663@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <05c1e691-c0b6-f1af-4850-68670f2d915d@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <05c1e691-c0b6-f1af-4850-68670f2d915d@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: Rich Felker Subject: Re: [musl] PPC64(LE) support in musl requires ALTIVEC On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 03:16:17PM +0100, Romain Naour wrote: > Hi, > > We noticed that musl toolchain doesn't work on PPC64 e5500 cpus due to > Altived instructions in src/setjmp/powerpc64/setjmp.s [1]. > > A patch has been sent by Vincent Fazio to the Buildroot mailing list to disable > musl for such cpus [2]. > > Maybe the supported-platforms list could be updated [3]. > > [1] https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/setjmp/powerpc64/setjmp.s#n74 > [2] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1231986/ > [3] https://wiki.musl-libc.org/supported-platforms.html Is this like the 32-bit Freescale things with the weird alternate FPU? We support those for ppc32 as soft-float (and AIUI the ABI for use with the FPU matches soft-float ABI, so in theory it could be supported but we were never clear on whether it's IEEE-conforming) but I wasn't aware of anything like that for 64-bit so it was never added. Assuming it's the same concept, I don't see a reason we couldn't add it. Rich