From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10136 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lei Zhang Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Dynamic linker name Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:23:36 +0800 Message-ID: References: <20160614150430.GP22574@port70.net> <20160615071004.GA505@nyan> <20160615130013.GA6427@dora.lan> 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 1466000653 2823 80.91.229.3 (15 Jun 2016 14:24:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:24:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Luca Barbato , Khem Raj To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-10149-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Jun 15 16:24:00 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 1bDBjb-0006SP-45 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:23:59 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5322 invoked by uid 550); 15 Jun 2016 14:23:50 -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 5300 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2016 14:23:49 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KZz6yBO13V61Uwzcv07lTsr/I54YXiJAZAeJcnF96V0=; b=EoRWDnbEU1fW2xFzccJ078ShfPlUq762uiwWRhWJUAkXUxOOjbTntyWI/LJaPt4ui+ 0ytdpUxRJoywYYJ7lh+PvO+4pqic7fVtMn+6GCwZTFfyTDScjJ1+DcrhvQCUYlDvFSLe 6z0udJ+GjMZlnd+Q/Q0ufzKiuTUSuUV8ilMS8OZJWgRWPEOer0Ih8Pdzhtc7pzS88Wsg ZXooKYFW/TNIZnIpkYnReDCodstSrT9fMiGok2izorzJr3T2Ku8tQr6sRGoAeQS7c95N C5MbAdKF/J6Nxzs4TfeW/TWp7vVEi8ka+8tPuyVe1sVlqJ+Uq2FGu3ySicX2PKx2nu/H 2eOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KZz6yBO13V61Uwzcv07lTsr/I54YXiJAZAeJcnF96V0=; b=Qaw4yL+kaJKIa+zMoFnrZ2ZnG+Xw1CNjQXRNU4FiY4sJuofkEyr7usJ2JHNZY4JWi5 Rz/DRO0bqUdpmBzvc7u047cDL0B1s3/hrBPQOddApXt4NlZ81U4oYvLKEOcGW6fh1nqK jcIs6qfIP3R3cCPsrENDXCCRT/8LFXea8DnDZqQORBq+wq4eFzzm+PmABZ24P0FtFvrk DBTljGc4D7oCcENz6SmFP40olH2J8rJBX8GQY1CMXlhrcpZIOBYdtKt/jpykUa+JSl5h dQUE9wYGFFCuJ+Xj5YxMuf/A6aPwUAEZ8ApP0AxnxrCereEUe1fRiNx/u6RN8cVZXv46 1a3g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKtLK6bD63U0zp7qxY1PDTtFaxUT8DSz8664yjZKiaWR3YS/reOVVx/Ww9iDkwfxQvwU4BsY10I25DcrA== X-Received: by 10.202.241.67 with SMTP id p64mr11890422oih.197.1466000617449; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 07:23:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160615130013.GA6427@dora.lan> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10136 Archived-At: 2016-06-15 21:00 GMT+08:00 Bobby Bingham : > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:39:51PM +0800, Lei Zhang wrote: >> 2016-06-15 17:31 GMT+08:00 Luca Barbato : >> > On 15/06/16 10:16, Lei Zhang wrote: >> >> i386 >> >> x86_64 >> >> powerpc >> >> powerpc64 >> >> mips >> >> mipsel >> >> mips64 >> >> mips64el >> >> >> >> which should just work out the box with my previous patch. I'll take >> >> care of x32 and ARM (subarchs and ABIs) with further patches. >> > >> > Powerpc can be little endian as well but it can wait the arm patch as well. >> >> I've only seen powerpc64le; don't know if 32-bit powerpc doesn't >> support little endian. > > There are a couple things you should know about musl's support for > powerpc64 which mean you probably shouldn't add it. > > Two different ABIs exist for powerpc64. The new one is sometimes called > powerpc64le. While it's typically used on little endian, there's no > reason it can't be used on big endian systems as well. Musl only > supports the new ABI, but supports it for both big and little endian. > The arch names used by musl for them are: I just did a quick search; are these two ABIs called "ppc64 elf" and "ppc64 elf v2" respectively? > Last I checked, clang only supported using IBM double-double for long > double on powerpc64. If this is still true, then clang cannot match > musl's ABI on powerpc64. I think powerpc64 needs no special handling anyway (unlike ARM); it just happens to be supported by the patch. OTOH, do you think I should *explicitly* disallow clang being configured against musl when targeting powerpc64? I can put that logic in my next patch if it makes sense. Thanks, Lei