From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9711 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Masanori Ogino Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general,gmane.comp.hardware.lowrisc.devel Subject: Re: [GSoC2016] A proposal on porting musl to RISC-V Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:13:43 +0900 Message-ID: References: <20160319063749.GT21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458443640 12317 80.91.229.3 (20 Mar 2016 03:14:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 03:14:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lowrisc-dev@lists.lowrisc.org, musl@lists.openwall.com To: Rich Felker Original-X-From: musl-return-9724-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Mar 20 04:13:59 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 1ahToU-0005zs-SL for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 04:13:58 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26030 invoked by uid 550); 20 Mar 2016 03:13:56 -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 25991 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2016 03:13:55 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=rsWBntHcDSe/KFUGDWLMHvP7w7KzrAfOhwV0vDDswio=; b=Kfb5P7CilTi3sfPBjoF5CwrW5qAQm+kmwMmbdDYBFFxEcBCUokVIjOHLM5SXkb3tNT e/lkuODKfGHr96fnLfSLZeKBg3Dkz4ONYrw6g3yJUM6XccsHM1YF6HPGIhH/0OOF5Gii jZHgTvTHaUcOVOlKyGBkOJxjTH+p4SWzwJcYaKfvpgNw9n6GaeSBFjGU3izQgJ5x4K2z Y586zWYPgTnBXaDICtShlObrhPL9NQ7iqB1rB385aUH8vtFv9/Z+ZQtv0LRycG4vSUpP tHzLboYe+rmGG70rE67Vp56CILHmOXq09y3OOozCvp7DP9mfrF0lZEND9BDz0lTZsII0 i4Mw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=rsWBntHcDSe/KFUGDWLMHvP7w7KzrAfOhwV0vDDswio=; b=maHHgkbJh7Tv0WZzErhnBL8qchrOZAV5h2JRuYQz4ayGZ0iNcJ93HcZ9pMr0n0xFzK pUAkxk6zl1fFbtHVHC7dBw7NvOpfvvadOs4G3xcKXUe1Dh5X7vCbKQz9+hFuzca/n3tW +3Hw536EwhYhr27QuQRT8oqpPW3OtT6tIw9r6rETvMcKB/RbiAyNlOWPGm6WqZqIBL+l sO0tK1VZqf0u03Xw4PsNZ5YNgoE5qQKT5VzmISXcif/sfSJeDZ6KS66W9RMudfUCHSeJ YsyxKptMKfDX2LsrXhnWVTTJFB1dUriiXc/B3vUXPzhBIriMZGBQ4Z4poL9nLhJj4KXb mOIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKrdyy0DKB0IOek971mMFg4ITR7bNH42zlcBrZbIMkfbHvuKaydnGt7+BmgULH/bx5/4N54VIJUtnzndQ== X-Received: by 10.60.150.235 with SMTP id ul11mr13678104oeb.70.1458443623708; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 20:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: masanoriogino@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20160319063749.GT21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Google-Sender-Auth: Dk6_C5WIsTZDj40LirP6hIzA6Fo Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9711 gmane.comp.hardware.lowrisc.devel:332 Archived-At: Thank you for reviewing! 2016-03-19 15:37 GMT+09:00 Rich Felker : > Looks very good! Some comments: > > In regards to your schedule, do you plan to do both rv32 and rv64 (and > some 'subarch' ABI variants for both) in parallel from the beginning? > I think it might make sense to get one (whatever is easiest) to the > point where you can do some meaningful testing before working on them > all, but I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on what approach works > best for you. Yes, I planed to port 32-bit and 64-bit variant in parallel. However, now I think that porting one first and then doing the other is better since this approach can test the toolchain part earlier. > One thing to keep in mind (not sure if you're aware of it yet) is that > there's an in-progress port, now linked from the lowrisc.org project > ideas page, by another student who's interested in applying. Please > don't be discouraged by that; the reason I'm mentioning it is just > that I think anyone applying should either be planning to use the work > that's already done (being careful to properly document authorship) or > have a good explanation for why they're not going to. For your > proposal, this probably means greatly reducing the number of weeks to > be spent on getting the port basically up and running and dedicating > more time to the extended deliverables. I didn't aware of that port. Thanks! I will take a look at it and revise the proposal with my decision. > That's actually a good thing because I don't think you've allocated as > much time for the extended deliverables as they might take. For > example, for the vdso stuff, if you plan to do the actual kernel > patches, that's going to require familiarizing yourself with kernel > hacking if you're not already. And hooking it up to GCC for the > compiler to use with -mno-atomic (rather than just having libc use it > internally) requires some GCC hacking _and_ establishing some ABI for > the GCC-generated code to get to the vdso (probably via libc). Sure. I will reconsider the schedule. > Hope these comments help, and sorry for not getting back to you > sooner. I've had a busy week. No problem. This really helps me. -- Masanori Ogino