Re: [musl] [RFC v3 1/1] xtensa: add port

[Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 3:15 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 02:47:45PM -0700, Max Filippov wrote:
> > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 1:57 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 11:01:12AM -0700, Max Filippov wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/xtensa/reloc.h b/arch/xtensa/reloc.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..cd7a455a2d9c
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/xtensa/reloc.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> > > > +#if __FDPIC__
> > > > +#define ABI_SUFFIX "-fdpic"
> > > > +#else
> > > > +#define ABI_SUFFIX ""
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +
> > > > +#define LDSO_ARCH "xtensa" ABI_SUFFIX
> > >
> > > The ldso name is still missing endianness, if it's intended that both
> > > be supported. It needs to completely identify the ABI whenever there
> > > are incompatible ABI variants.
> >
> > For each xtensa core there's only one fixed endianness and code
> > built for one xtensa core is not supposed to be used for any other
> > core, so it's not an issue, right?
>
> Yes, it is an issue. The ldsonames for ABIs must be globally unique.
> They are intended to be installable in a filesystem shared between
> multiple archs, possibly even unrelated archs executed via qemu-user
> or similar.

That means an unbound number of libraries, one per xtensa core
configuration and the solution that comes to mind is using xtensa
core name as a part of ABI name. This is a bit complicated by the
fact that core names are not guaranteed to be globally unique, but
does that sound reasonable in general?

-- 
Thanks.
-- Max