From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-f180.google.com (mail-pl1-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F287385417F for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 10:14:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5F287385417F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pl1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1b8b4749013so13208395ad.2 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 03:14:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689934479; x=1690539279; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tfH/P2cCwMdYaM9kV7mBbAnbUC+wdUQDm9k1BjmHxK0=; b=QIF+bsal7ujhzYpUhI/0r3n9vmfAtjBaZERRH4WvYtBEWBR0BvU9up9rRIbvVMapbW h6OTAA9Fd4okuyLMfMsfEKhX443DRzteejqXNte4yLhbJXzC3EklthdHJVd55pfou48O GfN/b07sVA6yoaQzJYe4yNvM1cgZ/PIU98310dhcuraOoMqcawE5RKac1ng+ICgK0+ZW FHi9jcM476uEdW7uunKzTZtbg2P5SOha5mDyiiyIJmARiFF8i6Xqt7QgQ5muqEgWLHt1 XRl2Aoxk7KQmhiWJBK8EtsGDYU1wiLWrdbZchGmYEnfulYv3ZR12EmJW8ZX1efrTBLOI AkJw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLabFrQJX7BAJkyeJZmhoNxlJXizTYC1VEGJ4PklnDQfSgt8zOLw xp3MIhlv/bnTp/31CDrtrNVUe77dlxkImiBbHb8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlFqOHOHtlKXqZbzhHdSARG+fYlPJLWsO4gWEABaa8BS5xYn4Bb4fQbjA8PcquAaEez5Mfjdb0RG5oJ+SJ4t3K0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:456:b0:1b8:ae11:bf5b with SMTP id iw22-20020a170903045600b001b8ae11bf5bmr1403237plb.62.1689934479001; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 03:14:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230414072046.1639896-1-yunqiang.su@cipunited.com> <20230418140019.2195551-1-yunqiang.su@cipunited.com> In-Reply-To: From: YunQiang Su Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:14:26 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] MIPS: support mips*64 as CPU and gnuabi64 as ABI To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Richard Sandiford , Nick Clifton , YunQiang Su , binutils@sourceware.org, xry111@xry111.site, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Maciej W. Rozycki =E4=BA=8E2023=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8821=E6= =97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=BA=94 18:01=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > Nick, please hold on with 2.41 until this incompatible ABI change has bee= n > sorted. > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > > For MIPS64r6 ports, Debian as an example, `mipsisa64r6el` is > > > used as the cpu name in triple. > > > Let's recognize them by `mips*64*(el)`. > > > > > > For 64bit Ports, like Debian's mips64el and mips64r6el ports, > > > `gnuabi64` is used as the abi section. > > > Let's use N64 abi by default for the triple with gnuabi64. > > > --- > > > bfd/config.bfd | 14 ++++++++++++= -- > > > .../testsuite/binutils-all/mips/mips-note-2-n32.d | 1 + > > > gas/configure | 5 ++++- > > > gas/configure.ac | 5 ++++- > > > gold/configure.tgt | 14 ++++++++++++= ++ > > > ld/configure.tgt | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > 6 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > OK, thanks. > > So this has changed the default ABI from o32 to n32 for `mipsisa64-*-*' I think that maybe you have a misunderstanding. 1. It is *not* for `mipsisa64-*-*', it is for `mipsisa64-*-gnuabi64' 2. It is not from O32 to N32. It is from N32 to N64. > targets and the like, which I only realised by getting odd results from a= n > attempt to make a test case for another change of YunQiang's I have begun > reviewing now. > > I can't find this rather significant and incompatible change of semantic= s > mentioned anywhere in the trail of messages associated with this patch > submission, let alone the change description. Have you been aware of it > and acked the change regardless, or has it slipped through? > > It seems to me such a major change, even if actually approved, should be > rather prominently mentioned in the change description with rationale > given, and made on its own rather than with other modifications. > > NB I'm stuck with the other review until this has been sorted and may > have to revert this change too, as I have the other change ready to commi= t > except for conflicting test results. Also we need to be careful not to > let this get downstream with 2.41 unless we're very, very sure it is the > right change to make. > > Maciej