From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-x334.google.com (mail-ot1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::334]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90BB23858421 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:10:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 90BB23858421 Received: by mail-ot1-x334.google.com with SMTP id h19-20020a9d6f93000000b0061c1ad77d5fso4630679otq.6 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:10:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cx1u9uNYwM8ryzp1U3ztNsJYiVGfD8QyDIUIblwv0zE=; b=36bpU1m+ZvIF4WwX07XE57BS0r1ZPT6ymoBeZfnxxhlvWmS7RWqqh/3kpN+WtEeCiq XOOJ5wtyyUcJa9lb0Mf91rUAoKbdEOWTfgqlT+4Dl8noXC9I73v4FWroNuQXsAHT59Xn wMKG5Wo3l8W59tK0vyuQiL8DRAvLGhopCqtYIU4F3pguLIIDZ+/dPPZsaJCPFAzrY62r fLkDpfQrNFDYBf3wvpppr1wU0T63gfUF3CQGR0ud26aUU58U3soRPFT4D6T854v+3ZFf NTp6n+9qV7lzG811k27u4w9w9xlpILICG0yTkF2hwTigP6LTmIobaAMMiRM1/vWLqtQN Q5ZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/lEIAqkwenxXDfXqI9rP2cP3sepZrl6R7EAkSCLrsTQXDV8Tcn uEgj6Lr+uIPQzK9pDsDMZ4A7iA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vV6cst4mRs67IM9BIPBR5n77ME62FMSrfWnWxyCM3+GNqi93c5c8SHr/I6Rei6MdIuAZD2dQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1adb:b0:61c:50c0:839a with SMTP id r27-20020a0568301adb00b0061c50c0839amr1999750otc.156.1657566626869; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2804:431:c7cb:5bec:a591:bf2:d8b8:7a84? ([2804:431:c7cb:5bec:a591:bf2:d8b8:7a84]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i18-20020a9d68d2000000b0061c4d5a5616sm1287178oto.63.2022.07.11.12.10.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7aba5486-ac02-2088-221e-513a6892817a@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:10:21 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.0.1 Subject: Re: glibc 2.36 - Slushy freeze (3 weeks to release) Content-Language: en-US To: Xi Ruoyao , Carlos O'Donell , libc-alpha Cc: liuzhensong , Wang Xuerui , binutils@sourceware.org, Fangrui Song , caiyinyu References: From: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Organization: Linaro In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:10:38 -0000 On 11/07/22 13:06, Xi Ruoyao via Binutils wrote: > +binutils because we'll have to discuss binutils-related issues. > > On Mon, 2022-07-11 at 11:20 -0400, Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha wrote: > >> Desirable: >> >> * GLIBC LoongArch PATCHES >> >> The LoongArch patches are currently under review, but there looks to be >> some unresolved binutils issues. Just for clarity we expect a glibc port >> to have committed patches for the linux kernel, gcc, and binutils before >> inclusion in glibc. > > GCC is mostly fine. There are some "outstanding" bugs in 12.1 but AFAIK > they don't cause issues building glibc. You can use releases/gcc-12 > branch if you have any doubt. > > Kernel userspace API is fine in 5.19-rc. There are issues about boot > protocol and some drivers but these issues are completely unrelated to > glibc. > > For binutils, ld is generating strange R_LARCH_NONE relocations (caused > by an over-allocate of .rel.* sections and the usage of 0 as padding), > and ld is generating R_LARCH_IRELATIVE for .rel.plt section (Fangrui > says .rel.plt should not contain R_LARCH_IRELATIVE). > > Loongson engineers seems preparing a large patch series containing > *both* the bug fix removing buggy R_LARCH_NONE and R_LARCH_IRELATIVE > relocations, *and* the implementation of many new relocation types > (superseding the current stack-based relocs which are disliked by many > people, including me). > > Unfortunately, binutils 2.39 release branch is already created and I > don't think such a large change set can be reviewed and landed into > binutils soon. So I'll repeat my suggestion again: it's better to > separate the bug fix and the new feature into two patch series, and get > the bug fix landed and backported for binutils-2.39 branch ASAP. The > new relocs (and/or other new features) can be reviewed later for > binutils 2.40, after 2.39 release. > > I don't like the stack-based relocs, maybe even more than you guys - I > remember I'd shout loudly with "colorful metaphors" when I had to use > these relocs in LLVM. However another binutils release "supporting" > LoongArch but completely unusable in practice will be worse. (Remind: > 2.38 is already such a release.) So do we need a binutils 2.39 to have a workable glibc build or is the 2.38 suffice? The R_LARCH_NONE issue should only affect performance, since it should be ignored by loader although I am not sure without understanding better the issue. For R_LARCH_IRELATIVE I think we can just disable ifunc support for now and re-enable on 2.37 once it is properly fixed on binutils (maybe also bumping minimum required binutils).