Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Florian Weimer]

As far as I understand it, the Hurd port of glibc is currently mostly a 
downstream affair, maintained in the Debian archive.  The current 
upstream tree does not build, even natively on the Hurd itself.

What would be necessary to get it into a state that in can be built with 
a cross-compiler, perhaps even using build-many-glibcs.py?  Are FSF 
copyright assignments in place for all the relevant patches?  Is it just 
a matter of someone doing the work of upstreaming all the existing patches?

I'm asking because we may want to implement rather far-reaching dynamic 
linker and a thread library integration changes, and having a buildable 
in-tree port for Hurd would make it at least possible to ensure that it 
keeps building, and that we do not make choices which are very difficult 
to mirror on the Hurd side.

If we cannot resolve this is in the coming months, I think we should 
seriously consider a removal of the Hurd port, I'm afraid.

Thanks,
Florian

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Florian Weimer, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 13:39:51 +0100, wrote:
> Is it just a matter of someone doing the work of upstreaming all the
> existing patches?

It's mostly that, yes.

> If we cannot resolve this is in the coming months, I think we should
> seriously consider a removal of the Hurd port, I'm afraid.

Ok, then I can take the time to do it, but as usual it'll be at the
expense of other Hurd activities, e.g. the obvious Meltdown/Spectre
issues, etc.

Unless bug-hurd people actually help me with it.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Florian Weimer]

On 01/18/2018 01:45 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Florian Weimer, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 13:39:51 +0100, wrote:
>> Is it just a matter of someone doing the work of upstreaming all the
>> existing patches?
> 
> It's mostly that, yes.

Good to know, thanks.

The question is how we can do this incrementally (so that others can 
contribute), considering that is currently not exactly easy to set up 
and maintain a development environment to validate the changes.

>> If we cannot resolve this is in the coming months, I think we should
>> seriously consider a removal of the Hurd port, I'm afraid.
> 
> Ok, then I can take the time to do it, but as usual it'll be at the
> expense of other Hurd activities, e.g. the obvious Meltdown/Spectre
> issues, etc.

Information leakage and microkernels are certainly an interesting 
research topic.  Message passing results in very different security 
considerations.

> Unless bug-hurd people actually help me with it.

I have repeatedly suggested that the FSF uses the toolchain fund to pay 
for this work.  I do not know there was under serious consideration (or 
if the suggestion even made it to the FSF).

Thanks,
Florian

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

Please note (as a reminder from past discussions) that the Hurd libpthread 
will need to be included as part of glibc, much like NPTL is a 
fully-integrated part of glibc - not a separate package (support for 
add-ons has been removed from glibc).  (I'd also suggest that it *not* use 
a top-level directory called simply "libpthread" or similar without 
mention of Hurd, as that would be too confusing to people looking at the 
source tree for pthreads for other platforms.)

Also as per previous discussions: Hurd port maintainers can put in changes 
to Hurd-specific files at any time (regardless of release freeze state) 
until the port is actually working.  All the usual coding standards of 
course apply, and changes to files that might affect non-Hurd may need 
review and not be appropriate at some times, depending on freeze state and 
the risks associated with such patches.

In my view, build-many-glibcs.py support for Hurd would be appropriate 
even before the Hurd port builds (and certainly before it cleanly passes 
the compilation tests).  That support will definitely need patch review.

Before Hurd support is fully integrated in glibc, I'd encourage having a 
branch *in the glibc repository* that contains such support, so we can 
more readily see what the changes yet to be merged are (and possibly 
comment on issues that will need addressing when integrating them in 
glibc).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

Incidentally, Samuel did post the Hurd TLS support three years ago 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-02/msg00139.html>.  Roland's 
review comments should of course be considered, though the current Hurd 
port maintainers are free to decide they disagree with particular aspects 
of those comments.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 13:52:32 +0000, wrote:
> Incidentally, Samuel did post the Hurd TLS support three years ago 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-02/msg00139.html>.  Roland's 
> review comments should of course be considered,

Yes, it has been on my TODO list for as long, hoping that perhaps
somebody could help with it, at least on the coding style part. That
hasn't materialized.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 13:47:42 +0000, wrote:
> Please note (as a reminder from past discussions) that the Hurd libpthread 
> will need to be included as part of glibc, much like NPTL is a 
> fully-integrated part of glibc - not a separate package (support for 
> add-ons has been removed from glibc).

Sure, I had to do that work for fixing the build of the
2.26.9000+20180108.401311cf-0experimental0 Debian snapshot

> Also as per previous discussions: Hurd port maintainers can put in changes 
> to Hurd-specific files at any time

Sure!

> All the usual coding standards of course apply,

And that's were I haven't received help so far.

> In my view, build-many-glibcs.py support for Hurd would be appropriate 
> even before the Hurd port builds (and certainly before it cleanly passes 
> the compilation tests).  That support will definitely need patch review.
> 
> Before Hurd support is fully integrated in glibc, I'd encourage having a 
> branch *in the glibc repository* that contains such support, so we can 
> more readily see what the changes yet to be merged are (and possibly 
> comment on issues that will need addressing when integrating them in 
> glibc).

I can pile-commit what we currently have, with all the XXXs, FIXMEs,
etc., if that can help the glibc side.

But the actual discussion of changes is what takes time, and bug-hurd
people have to actually help me with it (or at least unload from me the
coding standards and ChangeLog parts) if they want it to happen fast
enough.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> > Before Hurd support is fully integrated in glibc, I'd encourage having a 
> > branch *in the glibc repository* that contains such support, so we can 
> > more readily see what the changes yet to be merged are (and possibly 
> > comment on issues that will need addressing when integrating them in 
> > glibc).
> 
> I can pile-commit what we currently have, with all the XXXs, FIXMEs,
> etc., if that can help the glibc side.

I think having such a branch (rebased from time to time, especially as 
Hurd changes make their way into master or get cleaned up for issues 
raised, so it doesn't fall too far behind master) would be helpful so we 
can see the changes and quite likely point out global issues to be 
addressed throughout.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 14:03:18 +0000, wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> > > Before Hurd support is fully integrated in glibc, I'd encourage having a 
> > > branch *in the glibc repository* that contains such support, so we can 
> > > more readily see what the changes yet to be merged are (and possibly 
> > > comment on issues that will need addressing when integrating them in 
> > > glibc).
> > 
> > I can pile-commit what we currently have, with all the XXXs, FIXMEs,
> > etc., if that can help the glibc side.
> 
> I think having such a branch [...] would be helpful so we can see
> the changes and quite likely point out global issues to be addressed
> throughout.

The branch now does build fine :)

The next issue is that some tests fail to build.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi!

Despite my good intentions, in the past year (or even longer...) I failed
to allocate sufficient time to do any substantial work on the Hurd side,
but I'll now allocate time to at least help with...

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:57:58 +0100, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 13:47:42 +0000, wrote:
> > All the usual coding standards of course apply,
> 
> And that's were I haven't received help so far.

... that.  (Plus the GDB stuff I promised to look into.)

> I can pile-commit what we currently have, with all the XXXs, FIXMEs,
> etc., if that can help the glibc side.

I'm not sure if that's a useful thing to spend time on, right now.  I
think it'll be better if we first integrate into glibc upstream the
changes that are non-controversial on our own side, which only touch Hurd
code, etc.  Then, for the rest of the changes, those which also touch
generic glibc code, we should then discuss these individually.

> But the actual discussion of changes is what takes time, and bug-hurd
> people have to actually help me with it (or at least unload from me the
> coding standards and ChangeLog parts) if they want it to happen fast
> enough.

ACK.


Grüße
 Thomas

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Thomas Schwinge, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 15:22:09 +0100, wrote:
> > I can pile-commit what we currently have, with all the XXXs, FIXMEs,
> > etc., if that can help the glibc side.
> 
> I'm not sure if that's a useful thing to spend time on, right now.  I
> think it'll be better if we first integrate into glibc upstream the
> changes that are non-controversial on our own side, which only touch Hurd
> code, etc.  Then, for the rest of the changes, those which also touch
> generic glibc code, we should then discuss these individually.

Note that I didn't mean all patches, just the ones needed for building
glibc.

Yes, the discussion has to happen, we can't fast-forward that.  But
putting the stuff on a branch, so people can have a look if they want to
and track the progress, can be useful.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Thomas Schwinge, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 15:22:09 +0100, wrote:
> Despite my good intentions, in the past year (or even longer...) I failed
> to allocate sufficient time to do any substantial work on the Hurd side,
> but I'll now allocate time to at least help with...
> 
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:57:58 +0100, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 13:47:42 +0000, wrote:
> > > All the usual coding standards of course apply,
> > 
> > And that's were I haven't received help so far.
> 
> ... that.  (Plus the GDB stuff I promised to look into.)

Well, cool, but I'd prefer that you spend your available time on the gdb
things and the *content* of the glibc patches which we need :)

(for some of the patches in mentioned in a separate mail, there is no
real explanation why they are needed, what should be done about them,
etc.)

Coding standards can be worked on by anybody, this is really something
that bug-hurd people can unload us from.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Coding standards can be worked on by anybody, this is really something
> that bug-hurd people can unload us from.

Which is also something that having a branch with the patches is helpful 
for - it allows glibc people to look over them and point out coding 
standards issues to be addressed globally by people less familiar with the 
conventions used in glibc.  (Though when those issues are addressed the 
fixes should be integrated into each patch as part of a rebase, rather 
than simply adding another patch to the branch that fixes coding standards 
issues with the previous patches.)

(A branch close to current master also provides a basis for anyone working 
on build-many-glibcs.py support for Hurd, if you don't already have such 
support among your glibc patches.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 15:34:56 +0000, wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Coding standards can be worked on by anybody, this is really something
> > that bug-hurd people can unload us from.
> 
> Which is also something that having a branch with the patches is helpful 
> for -

Well, we already have that on

git clone git.savannah.gnu.org:/srv/git/hurd/glibc.git/

with almost a hundred branches to be looked after...
Not all of them are necessary for managing to build glibc. Some of them
are just hacking, others are perhaps almost ready to commit, just
missing changelogs & formatting. That's the triaging thing that takes
time, and having to do all the work including changelogs & formatting
makes it get lower in my global TODOlist.

That repo is not on top of master, but on top of the oldest glibc used
by the few GNU/Hurd distros. That's currently 2.24, but we have branches
to fast-forward that to 2.25 and 2.26.

> (A branch close to current master also provides a basis for anyone working 
> on build-many-glibcs.py support for Hurd, if you don't already have such 
> support among your glibc patches.)

That's why I suggested just committing the required patches to a branch
that we rebase regularly, so there's a master that does build.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 15:34:56 +0000, wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Coding standards can be worked on by anybody, this is really something
> > > that bug-hurd people can unload us from.
> > 
> > Which is also something that having a branch with the patches is helpful 
> > for -
> 
> Well, we already have that on
> 
> git clone git.savannah.gnu.org:/srv/git/hurd/glibc.git/
> 
> with almost a hundred branches to be looked after...

A hundred branches with many different purposes is not something at all 
convenient for glibc people to look over!

> Not all of them are necessary for managing to build glibc. Some of them
> are just hacking, others are perhaps almost ready to commit, just
> missing changelogs & formatting. That's the triaging thing that takes
> time, and having to do all the work including changelogs & formatting
> makes it get lower in my global TODOlist.

I'm still arguing on bug-standards for removing the requirement for 
ChangeLog format (given a public distributed version control system), but 
that wouldn't remove the requirement for proper explanations of patches, 
just mean that explanations intended to be read together with the patches 
themselves would suffice, without needing to duplicate the low-level 
details of how the patches change each affected named entity.

> > (A branch close to current master also provides a basis for anyone working 
> > on build-many-glibcs.py support for Hurd, if you don't already have such 
> > support among your glibc patches.)
> 
> That's why I suggested just committing the required patches to a branch
> that we rebase regularly, so there's a master that does build.

Yes, that's what I'd like to see.  From the perspective of people wanting 
to do global changes to glibc I think the priorities would be (a) building 
cleanly for Hurd; (b) building for Hurd with the intended ABI exported 
from each library at each symbol version; (c) having ABI test baselines to 
verify the ABI stays as expected; (d) having all the rest of the 
compilation parts of the testsuite passing.  Even given just (a) I might 
look at setting up build-many-glibcs.py support.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 16:47:55 +0000, wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> > Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 15:34:56 +0000, wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Coding standards can be worked on by anybody, this is really something
> > > > that bug-hurd people can unload us from.
> > > 
> > > Which is also something that having a branch with the patches is helpful 
> > > for -
> > 
> > Well, we already have that on
> > 
> > git clone git.savannah.gnu.org:/srv/git/hurd/glibc.git/
> > 
> > with almost a hundred branches to be looked after...
> 
> A hundred branches with many different purposes is not something at all 
> convenient for glibc people to look over!

That's why I meant work is needed to sort out what we want to show
people. Which takes triaging time, back to square 0. I sent to the
bug-hurd list the list of patches which was enough at some point to get
glibc buildable, that's what should be worked on and what I plan to
commit to a single branch on the upstream repo.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> That's why I meant work is needed to sort out what we want to show
> people. Which takes triaging time, back to square 0. I sent to the
> bug-hurd list the list of patches which was enough at some point to get
> glibc buildable, that's what should be worked on and what I plan to
> commit to a single branch on the upstream repo.

Thanks for the changes pushed to sthibaul/hurd-builds so far (I realise 
there will be more to get it into a buildable state, e.g. the actual 
libpthread implementation).

General observations on mainly coding style issues that should be cleaned 
up for actual submission (there are also obvious issues with changes to 
non-Hurd-specific files needing cleaning up / justifying, which I didn't 
list individually):

* Avoid __GNU__ conditionals in generic files (as per Roland's comments on 
the TLS patch).

* Use <year>-2018 in copyright notices.

* There should be a descriptive comment on the first line of each file 
before the copyright notice.  Where you have such comments, make sure they 
don't say something is a generic version when actually it's a 
Hurd-specific version.

* Avoid FSF postal addresses in license notices; use a URL instead, as in 
existing files in glibc (using an https URL will avoid needing to be 
included in an http -> https fix for such URLs in future).

* No "Contributed by" notices in new files.

* verify.h should be LGPLv2.1+ for glibc use, but actually I think you 
should just use _Static_assert instead of verify.h, since the minimum 
compiler version for building glibc supports _Static_assert.

* sysdeps/mach/hurd/gai_misc.h needs a copyright / license notice (and is 
missing spaces before '(' in some places).

* In a few places, missing preprocessor indentation inside #if (as per 
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Style_and_Conventions#Nested_C_Preprocessor_Directives>, 
should be used except for a multiple include guard round a whole file).

* Why are some symbols added in sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/posix_opt.h with 
value 200112L, when 200809L corresponds to the POSIX version generally 
supported by glibc?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 23:15:59 +0000, wrote:
> Thanks for the changes pushed to sthibaul/hurd-builds so far (I realise 
> there will be more to get it into a buildable state, e.g. the actual 
> libpthread implementation).

What I have pushed is basically only missing the libpthread
implementation, so you already have an idea of the minimal set of
modifications to get something building (and IIRC essentially passing
the testsuite).

> General observations on mainly coding style issues that should be cleaned 
> up for actual submission

Thanks for the comments!

Could bug-hurd@ help us with them?  There is a lot of non-technical
stuff there :)

> * Why are some symbols added in sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/posix_opt.h with 
> value 200112L, when 200809L corresponds to the POSIX version generally 
> supported by glibc?

I guess simply because at the time it wasn't the case :)

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 23:15:59 +0000, wrote:
> > Thanks for the changes pushed to sthibaul/hurd-builds so far (I realise 
> > there will be more to get it into a buildable state, e.g. the actual 
> > libpthread implementation).
> 
> What I have pushed is basically only missing the libpthread
> implementation, so you already have an idea of the minimal set of
> modifications to get something building (and IIRC essentially passing
> the testsuite).

I'd still like to have the libpthread implementation there (with a view to 
seeing if I can get build-many-glibcs.py working for Hurd with this branch 
- if the branch has sources that build for Hurd, I should have some chance 
of using 
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/incubator.git/tree/cross-gnu?h=cross-gnu/master 
to figure out how to do the Hurd-specific pieces that will need adding to 
build-many-glibcs.py).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi Joseph!

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:34:42 +0000, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> > Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 23:15:59 +0000, wrote:
> > > Thanks for the changes pushed to sthibaul/hurd-builds so far (I realise 
> > > there will be more to get it into a buildable state, e.g. the actual 
> > > libpthread implementation).
> > 
> > What I have pushed is basically only missing the libpthread
> > implementation, so you already have an idea of the minimal set of
> > modifications to get something building (and IIRC essentially passing
> > the testsuite).
> 
> I'd still like to have the libpthread implementation there (with a view to 
> seeing if I can get build-many-glibcs.py working for Hurd with this branch 

Many thanks for your offer!  As far as I'm aware indeed nobody from the
Hurd team has spent time on that yet.

> - if the branch has sources that build for Hurd, I should have some chance 
> of using 
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/incubator.git/tree/cross-gnu?h=cross-gnu/master 
> to figure out how to do the Hurd-specific pieces that will need adding to 
> build-many-glibcs.py).

Beware that this script is from many years ago -- from times before my
dear CodeSourcery colleagues taught be how to ;-) properly build
cross-compilers.  But yes, cross-gnu did work back then.

Another thing to look into nowadays is David's (CCed) gnuxc,
<http://mid.mail-archive.com/87r3vaw4os.fsf@gmail.com> "Scripts to build
a Hurd distro", <https://github.com/dm0-/gnuxc> "GNU OS Cross-Compiler".
(I have not yet looked into that one myself.)

And, the Guix/Hurd effort also is capable of cross-compilation, as far as
I remember.  But probably cross-gnu/gnuxc will already give you enough
pointers of what needs to be done.


Grüße
 Thomas

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Manolis Ragkousis]

Hello,

On 01/19/18 12:10, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Beware that this script is from many years ago -- from times before my
> dear CodeSourcery colleagues taught be how to ;-) properly build
> cross-compilers.  But yes, cross-gnu did work back then.
> 
> Another thing to look into nowadays is David's (CCed) gnuxc,
> <http://mid.mail-archive.com/87r3vaw4os.fsf@gmail.com> "Scripts to build
> a Hurd distro", <https://github.com/dm0-/gnuxc> "GNU OS Cross-Compiler".
> (I have not yet looked into that one myself.)
> 
> And, the Guix/Hurd effort also is capable of cross-compilation, as far as
> I remember.  But probably cross-gnu/gnuxc will already give you enough
> pointers of what needs to be done.
> 

Guix should be able to cross-build the hurdish glibc with custom source
with `guix build --target=i586-pc-gnu glibc-hurd --with-source=glibc.tar.gz`

Manolis

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

> > - if the branch has sources that build for Hurd, I should have some chance 
> > of using 
> > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/incubator.git/tree/cross-gnu?h=cross-gnu/master 
> > to figure out how to do the Hurd-specific pieces that will need adding to 
> > build-many-glibcs.py).
> 
> Beware that this script is from many years ago -- from times before my
> dear CodeSourcery colleagues taught be how to ;-) properly build
> cross-compilers.  But yes, cross-gnu did work back then.
> 
> Another thing to look into nowadays is David's (CCed) gnuxc,
> <http://mid.mail-archive.com/87r3vaw4os.fsf@gmail.com> "Scripts to build
> a Hurd distro", <https://github.com/dm0-/gnuxc> "GNU OS Cross-Compiler".
> (I have not yet looked into that one myself.)
> 
> And, the Guix/Hurd effort also is capable of cross-compilation, as far as
> I remember.  But probably cross-gnu/gnuxc will already give you enough
> pointers of what needs to be done.

Do you have advice on versions to use of mig / gnumach / hurd?

Currently, build-many-glibcs.py uses (by default) release versions of most 
components other than glibc itself, release branches for gcc / binutils.  
Should the most recent releases from ftp.gnu.org of mig / gnumach / hurd 
be used for building current glibc for Hurd, or is it preferable or 
necessary to use newer development versions of those components?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi!

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:08:01 +0000, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > [build-many-glibcs.py]

> Do you have advice on versions to use of mig / gnumach / hurd?
> 
> Currently, build-many-glibcs.py uses (by default) release versions of most 
> components other than glibc itself, release branches for gcc / binutils.  
> Should the most recent releases from ftp.gnu.org of mig / gnumach / hurd 
> be used for building current glibc for Hurd, or is it preferable or 
> necessary to use newer development versions of those components?

The current releases should generally be fine, yes.

(This reminds me that I wanted to publish new GNU Mach, MIG, Hurd,
libpthread releases, but no need for you to wait for these, as far as I
know.)


Grüße
 Thomas

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:08:01 +0000, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > > [build-many-glibcs.py]
> 
> > Do you have advice on versions to use of mig / gnumach / hurd?
> > 
> > Currently, build-many-glibcs.py uses (by default) release versions of most 
> > components other than glibc itself, release branches for gcc / binutils.  
> > Should the most recent releases from ftp.gnu.org of mig / gnumach / hurd 
> > be used for building current glibc for Hurd, or is it preferable or 
> > necessary to use newer development versions of those components?
> 
> The current releases should generally be fine, yes.

The source file sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/errno.h is generated from sources 
including some headers from those components.  I don't know how often 
those may change in ways that affect that header, or what versions the 
current header corresponds to, but in any case it's a known issue that 
there are several generated files in the source tree that 
build-many-glibcs.py doesn't yet touch on checkout.

> (This reminds me that I wanted to publish new GNU Mach, MIG, Hurd,
> libpthread releases, but no need for you to wait for these, as far as I
> know.)

Regarding libpthread, I don't propose build-many-glibcs.py support for a 
separate libpthread component; what's relevant is whatever version goes on 
the sthibaul/hurd-builds branch of glibc (set up to build without the old 
add-ons mechanism), and in due course on master.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Zack Weinberg]

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> The source file sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/errno.h is generated from sources
> including some headers from those components.  I don't know how often
> those may change in ways that affect that header, or what versions the
> current header corresponds to, but in any case it's a known issue that
> there are several generated files in the source tree that
> build-many-glibcs.py doesn't yet touch on checkout.

Note that there is no particularly good reason to have this file
checked in.  It's generated with an awk script, and the files it's
generated from are Mach and MIG headers that I believe must be present
in order to build glibc for Hurd at all.  If the Hurd build were
testable, I would probably have removed it from the source tree when I
cleaned up the errno.h __need macros, but in the current state I
didn't think it was safe.

That's the only Hurd-specific generated-but-checked-in file that I
know anything about.

zw

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >
> > The source file sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/errno.h is generated from sources
> > including some headers from those components.  I don't know how often
> > those may change in ways that affect that header, or what versions the
> > current header corresponds to, but in any case it's a known issue that
> > there are several generated files in the source tree that
> > build-many-glibcs.py doesn't yet touch on checkout.
> 
> Note that there is no particularly good reason to have this file
> checked in.  It's generated with an awk script, and the files it's

I'm not sure if having a non-checked-in generated file override another 
file in the source tree works correctly, the way a checked-in sysdeps file 
does override other files in the source tree.  (sysdeps/gnu/errlist.c is 
another case of a sysdeps generated file - it needs to override 
stdio-common/errlist.c, and for that matter gets included by 
sysdeps/mach/hurd/errlist.c.)

If the search orderings work correctly - both for finding files during the 
build, and for installing the correct bits/errno.h header (and the 
build-tree errlist.c can be properly included from the source-tree 
sysdeps/mach/hurd/errlist.c) - then there shouldn't be any need for either 
sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/errno.h or sysdeps/gnu/errlist.c to be checked in.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

> Hi Joseph!
> 
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:34:42 +0000, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > 
> > > Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 23:15:59 +0000, wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the changes pushed to sthibaul/hurd-builds so far (I realise 
> > > > there will be more to get it into a buildable state, e.g. the actual 
> > > > libpthread implementation).
> > > 
> > > What I have pushed is basically only missing the libpthread
> > > implementation, so you already have an idea of the minimal set of
> > > modifications to get something building (and IIRC essentially passing
> > > the testsuite).
> > 
> > I'd still like to have the libpthread implementation there (with a view to 
> > seeing if I can get build-many-glibcs.py working for Hurd with this branch 
> 
> Many thanks for your offer!  As far as I'm aware indeed nobody from the
> Hurd team has spent time on that yet.

This patch adds build-many-glibcs.py support for GNU Hurd.  It is
intended for master, where the builds of the i686-gnu configuration
would fail until sufficient support is merged to master, so completing
build-many-glibcs.py coverage of all glibc ABIs and making results
accurately reflect the broken state of builds for Hurd.  Using
sthibaul/hurd-builds branch, it reaches the glibc build, which then
falls over with errors starting:

In file included from mutex-init.c:19:0:
../mach/lock-intern.h: In function '__spin_lock_init':
../mach/lock-intern.h:41:13: error: 'LLL_INITIALIZER' undeclared (first use in this function)
   *__lock = LLL_INITIALIZER;
             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../mach/lock-intern.h:41:13: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
../mach/lock-intern.h: In function '__spin_lock':
../mach/lock-intern.h:50:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'lll_lock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   lll_lock (__lock, 0);
   ^~~~~~~~
In file included from mutex-init.c:20:0:
../mach/lowlevellock.h: At top level:
../mach/lowlevellock.h:21:10: fatal error: mach/gnumach.h: No such file or directory
 #include <mach/gnumach.h>
          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Could Hurd people review how this handles building for Hurd, and
indicate whether the above errors indicate problems with these
changes, or simply incompleteness of the build support on the
sthibaul/hurd-builds branch at present?

2018-01-19  Joseph Myers  <joseph@codesourcery.com>

	* scripts/build-many-glibcs.py (Context.add_all_configs): Add
	i686-gnu configurations.
	(Context.run_builds): Include mig, gnumach and hurd in components
	considered.
	(Context.checkout): Add mig, gnumach and hurd to components.
	(Context.checkout_tar): Add URL mappings for mig, gnumach and
	hurd.
	(Context.bot_cycle): Check for changes to mig, gnumach and hurd.
	(Config.build): Install gnumach headers, build mig and install
	hurd headers for 'gnu' OS.
	(Config.install_gnumach_headers): New function.
	(Config.install_hurd_headers): Likewise.
	(Glibc.build_glibc): Do not use /usr for 'gnu' OS.  Specifiy MIG
	when building for 'gnu' OS.

diff --git a/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py b/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py
index 8849574..6095584 100755
--- a/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py
+++ b/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py
@@ -193,6 +193,8 @@ class Context(object):
                                  '--with-fpu=vfpv3'])
         self.add_config(arch='hppa',
                         os_name='linux-gnu')
+        self.add_config(arch='i686',
+                        os_name='gnu')
         self.add_config(arch='ia64',
                         os_name='linux-gnu',
                         first_gcc_cfg=['--with-system-libunwind'])
@@ -461,13 +463,15 @@ class Context(object):
             old_versions = {}
             self.build_host_libraries()
         elif action == 'compilers':
-            build_components = ('binutils', 'gcc', 'glibc', 'linux')
+            build_components = ('binutils', 'gcc', 'glibc', 'linux', 'mig',
+                                'gnumach', 'hurd')
             old_components = ('gmp', 'mpfr', 'mpc')
             old_versions = self.build_state['host-libraries']['build-versions']
             self.build_compilers(configs)
         else:
             build_components = ('glibc',)
-            old_components = ('gmp', 'mpfr', 'mpc', 'binutils', 'gcc', 'linux')
+            old_components = ('gmp', 'mpfr', 'mpc', 'binutils', 'gcc', 'linux',
+                              'mig', 'gnumach', 'hurd')
             old_versions = self.build_state['compilers']['build-versions']
             self.build_glibcs(configs)
         self.write_files()
@@ -694,7 +698,10 @@ class Context(object):
                             'gmp': '6.1.2',
                             'linux': '4.14',
                             'mpc': '1.1.0',
-                            'mpfr': '4.0.0'}
+                            'mpfr': '4.0.0',
+                            'mig': '1.8',
+                            'gnumach': '1.8',
+                            'hurd': '0.9'}
         use_versions = {}
         explicit_versions = {}
         for v in versions:
@@ -829,7 +836,10 @@ class Context(object):
                    'gmp': 'https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gmp/gmp-%(version)s.tar.xz',
                    'linux': 'https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-%(version)s.tar.xz',
                    'mpc': 'https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/mpc/mpc-%(version)s.tar.gz',
-                   'mpfr': 'https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/mpfr/mpfr-%(version)s.tar.xz'}
+                   'mpfr': 'https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/mpfr/mpfr-%(version)s.tar.xz',
+                   'mig': 'https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/mig/mig-%(version)s.tar.bz2',
+                   'gnumach': 'https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnumach/gnumach-%(version)s.tar.bz2',
+                   'hurd': 'https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/hurd/hurd-%(version)s.tar.bz2'}
         if component not in url_map:
             print('error: component %s coming from tarball' % component)
             exit(1)
@@ -949,7 +959,8 @@ class Context(object):
                 self.clear_last_build_state(a)
             self.exec_self()
         check_components = {'host-libraries': ('gmp', 'mpfr', 'mpc'),
-                            'compilers': ('binutils', 'gcc', 'glibc', 'linux'),
+                            'compilers': ('binutils', 'gcc', 'glibc', 'linux',
+                                          'mig', 'gnumach', 'hurd'),
                             'glibcs': ('glibc',)}
         must_build = {}
         for a in actions:
@@ -1148,6 +1159,10 @@ class Config(object):
         if self.os.startswith('linux'):
             self.install_linux_headers(cmdlist)
         self.build_gcc(cmdlist, True)
+        if self.os == 'gnu':
+            self.install_gnumach_headers(cmdlist)
+            self.build_cross_tool(cmdlist, 'mig', 'mig')
+            self.install_hurd_headers(cmdlist)
         for g in self.compiler_glibcs:
             cmdlist.push_subdesc('glibc')
             cmdlist.push_subdesc(g.name)
@@ -1230,6 +1245,41 @@ class Config(object):
         cmdlist.cleanup_dir()
         cmdlist.pop_subdesc()
 
+    def install_gnumach_headers(self, cmdlist):
+        """Install GNU Mach headers."""
+        srcdir = self.ctx.component_srcdir('gnumach')
+        builddir = self.component_builddir('gnumach')
+        cmdlist.push_subdesc('gnumach')
+        cmdlist.create_use_dir(builddir)
+        cmdlist.add_command('configure',
+                            [os.path.join(srcdir, 'configure'),
+                             '--build=%s' % self.ctx.build_triplet,
+                             '--host=%s' % self.triplet,
+                             '--prefix=',
+                             'CC=%s-gcc -nostdlib' % self.triplet])
+        cmdlist.add_command('install', ['make', 'DESTDIR=%s' % self.sysroot,
+                                        'install-data'])
+        cmdlist.cleanup_dir()
+        cmdlist.pop_subdesc()
+
+    def install_hurd_headers(self, cmdlist):
+        """Install Hurd headers."""
+        srcdir = self.ctx.component_srcdir('hurd')
+        builddir = self.component_builddir('hurd')
+        cmdlist.push_subdesc('hurd')
+        cmdlist.create_use_dir(builddir)
+        cmdlist.add_command('configure',
+                            [os.path.join(srcdir, 'configure'),
+                             '--build=%s' % self.ctx.build_triplet,
+                             '--host=%s' % self.triplet,
+                             '--prefix=',
+                             '--disable-profile', '--without-parted',
+                             'CC=%s-gcc -nostdlib' % self.triplet])
+        cmdlist.add_command('install', ['make', 'prefix=%s' % self.sysroot,
+                                        'no_deps=t', 'install-headers'])
+        cmdlist.cleanup_dir()
+        cmdlist.pop_subdesc()
+
     def build_gcc(self, cmdlist, bootstrap):
         """Build GCC."""
         # libsanitizer commonly breaks because of glibc header
@@ -1346,8 +1396,10 @@ class Glibc(object):
         # writing into the working directory.  To avoid possible
         # concurrency issues, copy the source directory.
         cmdlist.create_copy_dir(srcdir, srcdir_copy)
+        use_usr = self.os != 'gnu'
+        prefix = '/usr' if use_usr else ''
         cfg_cmd = [os.path.join(srcdir_copy, 'configure'),
-                   '--prefix=/usr',
+                   '--prefix=%s' % prefix,
                    '--enable-profile',
                    '--build=%s' % self.ctx.build_triplet,
                    '--host=%s' % self.triplet,
@@ -1362,6 +1414,8 @@ class Glibc(object):
                    'RANLIB=%s' % self.tool_name('ranlib'),
                    'READELF=%s' % self.tool_name('readelf'),
                    'STRIP=%s' % self.tool_name('strip')]
+        if self.os == 'gnu':
+            cfg_cmd += ['MIG=%s' % self.tool_name('mig')]
         cfg_cmd += self.cfg
         cmdlist.add_command('configure', cfg_cmd)
         cmdlist.add_command('build', ['make'])
@@ -1369,10 +1423,11 @@ class Glibc(object):
                                         'install_root=%s' % installdir])
         # GCC uses paths such as lib/../lib64, so make sure lib
         # directories always exist.
-        cmdlist.add_command('mkdir-lib', ['mkdir', '-p',
-                                          os.path.join(installdir, 'lib'),
-                                          os.path.join(installdir,
-                                                       'usr', 'lib')])
+        mkdir_cmd = ['mkdir', '-p',
+                     os.path.join(installdir, 'lib')]
+        if use_usr:
+            mkdir_cmd += [os.path.join(installdir, 'usr', 'lib')]
+        cmdlist.add_command('mkdir-lib', mkdir_cmd)
         if not for_compiler:
             if self.ctx.strip:
                 cmdlist.add_command('strip',

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on ven. 19 janv. 2018 17:23:29 +0000, wrote:
> or simply incompleteness of the build support on the
> sthibaul/hurd-builds branch at present?

It's still incomplete, yes.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

Incidentally, building for GNU/Linux (at least x86_64) is broken on the 
sthibaul/hurd-builds branch (I suspect, based on the error messages, that 
"t2.26/sched_param" was responsible, but didn't verify that).  (I was 
testing to make sure my build-many-glibcs.py changes didn't affect 
GNU/Linux builds and so are safe to apply to master.  Building for 
GNU/Linux is not of course a priority for the branch, but any such issues 
with changes to non-OS-specific code will need fixing for merging to 
master.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on ven. 19 janv. 2018 17:50:19 +0000, wrote:
> Incidentally, building for GNU/Linux (at least x86_64) is broken on the 
> sthibaul/hurd-builds branch (I suspect, based on the error messages, that 
> "t2.26/sched_param" was responsible, but didn't verify that).

sched_param is very probably a culprit, yes.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Joseph Myers, on ven. 19 janv. 2018 17:23:29 +0000, wrote:
> Could Hurd people review how this handles building for Hurd,

Yes, it looks good.

> and indicate whether the above errors indicate problems with these
> changes, or simply incompleteness of the build support on the
> sthibaul/hurd-builds branch at present?

They are not related to the changes.  I have pushed fix updates against
them.

There is just one missing thing: mig prototypes etc. are not perfect,
and we thus have some nasty warnings about void * vs const void *. We'd
have to use

         if self.os == 'gnu':
             cfg_cmd += ['MIG=%s' % self.tool_name('mig')]
+            cfg_cmd += ['--disable-werror']

for now until we fix that.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Joseph Myers, on ven. 19 janv. 2018 17:23:29 +0000, wrote:
> > Could Hurd people review how this handles building for Hurd,
> 
> Yes, it looks good.

Thanks, I've committed it to master.

> > and indicate whether the above errors indicate problems with these
> > changes, or simply incompleteness of the build support on the
> > sthibaul/hurd-builds branch at present?
> 
> They are not related to the changes.  I have pushed fix updates against
> them.

Now I see errors about missing libc-lockP.h, and "implicit declaration of 
function '__spin_lock_solid'", and the discarded qualifiers errors you 
note below.

> There is just one missing thing: mig prototypes etc. are not perfect,
> and we thus have some nasty warnings about void * vs const void *. We'd
> have to use
> 
>          if self.os == 'gnu':
>              cfg_cmd += ['MIG=%s' % self.tool_name('mig')]
> +            cfg_cmd += ['--disable-werror']
> 
> for now until we fix that.

A properly upstreamed port should not need --disable-werror.  If 
workarounds are needed until there's a fixed mig release (or whatever), 
they could take the form of explicit casts, or CFLAGS-<file> += 
-Wno-error=discarded-qualifiers - disabling a particular warning being an 
error in a particular file is much better than globally disabling all 
warnings as errors.  (Strictly -Wno-error=discarded-qualifiers shouldn't 
be used unconditionally since that warning option is new in GCC 5 and 
glibc supports building with GCC 4.9, but in the current state of the Hurd 
port I think we can ignore that in Hurd-specific Makefiles.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Samuel Thibault, on mer. 24 janv. 2018 02:10:51 +0100, wrote:
> Joseph Myers, on ven. 19 janv. 2018 17:23:29 +0000, wrote:
> > and indicate whether the above errors indicate problems with these
> > changes, or simply incompleteness of the build support on the
> > sthibaul/hurd-builds branch at present?
> 
> They are not related to the changes.  I have pushed fix updates against
> them.

The next error is about inclusion of libc-lockP.h.  That's where I'll
have to import libpthread.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Samuel Thibault, on mer. 24 janv. 2018 02:27:26 +0100, wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, on mer. 24 janv. 2018 02:10:51 +0100, wrote:
> > Joseph Myers, on ven. 19 janv. 2018 17:23:29 +0000, wrote:
> > > and indicate whether the above errors indicate problems with these
> > > changes, or simply incompleteness of the build support on the
> > > sthibaul/hurd-builds branch at present?
> > 
> > They are not related to the changes.  I have pushed fix updates against
> > them.
> 
> The next error is about inclusion of libc-lockP.h.  That's where I'll
> have to import libpthread.

Which I have now done.  I see that it now fails on missing reference to
__file_exec_paths.  That's indeed a new RPC which hasn't been released
yet, so we'd need to use a git snapshot.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Samuel Thibault, on mer. 24 janv. 2018 02:27:26 +0100, wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault, on mer. 24 janv. 2018 02:10:51 +0100, wrote:
> > > Joseph Myers, on ven. 19 janv. 2018 17:23:29 +0000, wrote:
> > > > and indicate whether the above errors indicate problems with these
> > > > changes, or simply incompleteness of the build support on the
> > > > sthibaul/hurd-builds branch at present?
> > > 
> > > They are not related to the changes.  I have pushed fix updates against
> > > them.
> > 
> > The next error is about inclusion of libc-lockP.h.  That's where I'll
> > have to import libpthread.
> 
> Which I have now done.  I see that it now fails on missing reference to
> __file_exec_paths.  That's indeed a new RPC which hasn't been released
> yet, so we'd need to use a git snapshot.

If a git version of Hurd (or some other component) is needed, it would be 
reasonable to make vcs-mainline the default version of Hurd until there's 
a new release.  Longer-term (once Hurd is working on master) I'd hope 
there would be a clear (and documented) notion of minimum compile-time and 
run-time Hurd versions, as there is for glibc using the Linux kernel, with 
any features of newer versions being used only conditionally, so that the 
most recent releases are generally sufficient to build and use glibc for 
Hurd.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

Regarding the libpthread / htl code, and getting it ready for inclusion in 
glibc master:

Obviously my general coding style comments at 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-01/msg00646.html> apply equally 
to this code.  Apart from that:

* Remove htl/ChangeLog.  We don't have subdirectory ChangeLogs now.  
Everything goes in the top-level ChangeLog, with older ChangeLogs (that 
have actual ChangeLog content) being in the ChangeLog.old/ directory.  
When importing files / patches previously maintained elsewhere, I *do* 
think the ChangeLog header for those patches should name all authors who 
contributed to them (which may make for a long header with lots of authors 
listed).  (If the GNU Coding Standards change to stop requiring ChangeLog 
format and we decide to stop using it, we'll still need some convention 
for how to credit multi-author patches.)

* Remove htl/tests/.cvsignore.

* Support for building htl outside the glibc source tree (or with older 
glibc versions) should not be included.

* Files in htl/sysdeps should be moved into appropriate locations in the 
main sysdeps tree, just as was done with nptl/sysdeps when nptl ceased to 
be an add-on.

* You seem to have some custom system for building tests in htl/tests.  
Tests should be built and run using the normal glibc testsuite machinery 
(and should use <support/test-driver.c>).

* You have four installed non-bits/ API headers: pthread.h 
pthread/pthread.h pthread/pthreadtypes.h semaphore.h.  NPTL has just 
pthread.h and semaphore.h.  Do you really need pthread/pthread.h and 
pthread/pthreadtypes.h as installed public API headers?  I'd expect the 
same two API headers as NPTL has.

* The bits/ convention is for headers that are (a) installed, (b) only for 
use by other installed headers, not for direct inclusion by users (and 
sometimes have #error conditionals to guard against direct inclusion).  
Within that convention, there's a newer bits/types/ convention for headers 
defining a single type, which is intended as a replacement for the older 
__need_* convention.  Now, this brings up three points regarding the htl 
code (and possibly other pieces in the Hurd port).

(i) You still have some headers that define or use __need_*; those should 
be changed to use bits/types/ headers (__need_* has generally been 
eliminated from glibc, except where it's defined before including *GCC* 
headers, not glibc ones).

(ii) Some of the bits/ headers in htl look like they are just defining a 
single type, so should actually be bits/types/ headers named according to 
the new convention.

(iii) bits/memory.h and bits/pt-atomic.h don't appear to be installed 
headers, meaning they should not have bits/ names.  Actually, uses of 
those headers should probably be changed to use glibc's existing atomic.h 
interfaces, and those htl-specific headers removed - if for some reason 
the existing atomic.h interfaces are insufficient, maybe those interfaces 
need to be extended.


The following would be desirable cleanups, but maybe for after the code is 
in master:

* I'd expect that NPTL tests (and likewise HTL tests) are largely tests of 
POSIX (or GNU extension) threading functionality, not of features specific 
to one threading implementation.  Thus, they should as far as possible be 
shared between the different threading implementations.  I don't know the 
best directory arrangements for achieving that.

* Hopefully C11 threads support will be added for 2.28 (didn't get 
reviewed in time for 2.27).  The existing patches put it in the nptl/ 
directory, but again, to the extent that it actually builds on generic 
pthreads functionality, the code and its tests should be shared as much as 
possible between NPTL and HTL.

* Likewise for the pthread.h and semaphore.h API headers - only parts 
genuinely specific to a given implementation should be split out into 
implementation-specific bits/ headers.  (Indeed, the NPTL semaphore.h is 
already in sysdeps/pthread/ not an NPTL-specific directory - do you really 
need a different one for HTL?)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on jeu. 25 janv. 2018 16:12:48 +0000, wrote:
> do you really need [foo]

Assume no :)

I just imported the source as it is, containing everything that was
previously needed to make it buildable both within the hurd repository
and the glibc repository.

Thanks for listing the issues, though :)

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done.  It was a busy
week-end :)

We should be almost there, I believe I had addressed in
sthibaul/hurd-builds all requirements except a few remaining bits:

- Two patches pending comments on libc-alpha:
  [PATCH] hurd: Initialize TLS and libpthread before signal thread start
  [PATCH] hurd: Fix early rtld access to errno

- plugging the htl tests to the glibc test infrastructure.

- Fixing GNU Coding Style, notably first line of files.

- Fixing the date in sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/posix_opt.h.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Samuel Thibault
<samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done.  It was a busy
> week-end :)
>
> We should be almost there, I believe I had addressed in
> sthibaul/hurd-builds all requirements except a few remaining bits:

Is it still expected that glibc trunk cannot be built in the
--host=i686-gnu configuration?  I am getting

In file included from ../include/link.h:52:0,
                 from ../include/dlfcn.h:4,
                 from ../sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h:32,
                 from ../sysdeps/i386/ldsodefs.h:39,
                 from ../sysdeps/gnu/ldsodefs.h:46,
                 from setup-thread.c:22:
../sysdeps/mach/libc-lock.h:227:11: fatal error: libc-lockP.h: No such
file or directory
 # include <libc-lockP.h>
           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.

(I would like to suggest that getting "scripts/build-many-glibcs.py
$workdir compilers i686-gnu" to succeed, and
"scripts/build-many-glibcs.py $workdir glibcs i686-gnu" to fail only
in the testsuite phase, when $workdir/src/glibc contains a trunk
checkout, should be top priority -- once you get to that point, people
working on cross-cutting changes (like me) can ensure that they
haven't made the state of the Hurd port worse.)

zw

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Zack Weinberg, on lun. 19 mars 2018 11:36:18 -0400, wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Samuel Thibault
> <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done.  It was a busy
> > week-end :)
> >
> > We should be almost there, I believe I had addressed in
> > sthibaul/hurd-builds all requirements except a few remaining bits:
> 
> Is it still expected that glibc trunk cannot be built in the
> --host=i686-gnu configuration?  I am getting

Are you using the sthibaul/hurd-builds branch?
There are still things missing in master, notably the htl/
directories.

> (I would like to suggest that getting "scripts/build-many-glibcs.py
> $workdir compilers i686-gnu" to succeed,

It does work on my system with the sthibaul/hurd-builds branch.

> when $workdir/src/glibc contains a trunk checkout, should be top
> priority

Sure, that's precisely my goal.  I'm just checking for things that might
look odd in the sthibaul/hurd-builds branch before I push them to
master.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Zack Weinberg]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Samuel Thibault
<samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> Zack Weinberg, on lun. 19 mars 2018 11:36:18 -0400, wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Samuel Thibault
>> <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done.  It was a busy
>> > week-end :)
>> >
>> > We should be almost there, I believe I had addressed in
>> > sthibaul/hurd-builds all requirements except a few remaining bits:
>>
>> Is it still expected that glibc trunk cannot be built in the
>> --host=i686-gnu configuration?  I am getting
>
> Are you using the sthibaul/hurd-builds branch?

No, that's what I meant by "glibc trunk".

> There are still things missing in master, notably the htl/
> directories.

Oh, OK.  No hurry.

zw

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Zack Weinberg, on lun. 19 mars 2018 11:54:21 -0400, wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Samuel Thibault
> <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Zack Weinberg, on lun. 19 mars 2018 11:36:18 -0400, wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Samuel Thibault
> >> <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done.  It was a busy
> >> > week-end :)
> >> >
> >> > We should be almost there, I believe I had addressed in
> >> > sthibaul/hurd-builds all requirements except a few remaining bits:
> >>
> >> Is it still expected that glibc trunk cannot be built in the
> >> --host=i686-gnu configuration?  I am getting
> >
> > Are you using the sthibaul/hurd-builds branch?
> 
> No, that's what I meant by "glibc trunk".

Ok, sorry, I missed the "trunk" workd :)

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Rafal Luzynski]

Hello Samuel,

19.03.2018 02:51 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done. It was a busy
> week-end :)

I appreciate your work. :-) Sorry for a kinda off-topic but could you
please visit the Patchwork site [1] and mark your committed patches
as committed, or ask someone to do it for you?  I'm asking in public
because there are lots of patches from other people as well, also this
makes a chance for someone to respond in case if I'm too overzealous.
Thank you.

Regards,

Rafal


[1] https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Rafal Luzynski, on mar. 27 mars 2018 01:13:23 +0200, wrote:
> I appreciate your work. :-) Sorry for a kinda off-topic but could you
> please visit the Patchwork site [1] and mark your committed patches
> as committed, or ask someone to do it for you?

Oh, I didn't know about it. Is there a way to make them marked as
commited right from the mail subject, for future commits?

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Rafal Luzynski, on mar. 27 mars 2018 01:13:23 +0200, wrote:
> 19.03.2018 02:51 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done. It was a busy
> > week-end :)
> 
> I appreciate your work. :-) Sorry for a kinda off-topic but could you
> please visit the Patchwork site [1] and mark your committed patches
> as committed, or ask someone to do it for you?

It seems I can't mark patches submitted by other people, perhaps I just
need to be added to the "Maintainers" list?

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Rafal Luzynski]

27.03.2018 09:45 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> [...]
> Oh, I didn't know about it. Is there a way to make them marked as
> commited right from the mail subject, for future commits?

I don't know. Any hints, anybody?


27.03.2018 11:00 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> [...]
> It seems I can't mark patches submitted by other people, perhaps I just
> need to be added to the "Maintainers" list?

No, I wouldn't ask you to mark patches by other people, if you mark
your own patches that would be a great cleaning work already.
When I mentioned other people I meant that other people should
do the same with their own patches, so that's a general message,
not just for you.

Regards,

Rafal

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Rafal Luzynski, on mar. 27 mars 2018 12:40:27 +0200, wrote:
> 27.03.2018 11:00 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> > It seems I can't mark patches submitted by other people, perhaps I just
> > need to be added to the "Maintainers" list?
> 
> No, I wouldn't ask you to mark patches by other people, if you mark
> your own patches that would be a great cleaning work already.

Just to be sure: I meant patches submitted by others which I have
commited myself to glibc.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Rafal Luzynski]

27.03.2018 12:43 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> Rafal Luzynski, on mar. 27 mars 2018 12:40:27 +0200, wrote:
> > 27.03.2018 11:00 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > It seems I can't mark patches submitted by other people, perhaps I just
> > > need to be added to the "Maintainers" list?
> >
> > No, I wouldn't ask you to mark patches by other people, if you mark
> > your own patches that would be a great cleaning work already.
>
> Just to be sure: I meant patches submitted by others which I have
> commited myself to glibc.

That's only more confusing for me. I am a relatively new maintainer
here, this explains why it is so easy for me to put my attention on
the things I learned not so long ago. Regarding your questions we need
some feedback from more experienced maintainers, I am curious as well.

Regards,

Rafal

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho]

Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> writes:

> Rafal Luzynski, on mar. 27 mars 2018 01:13:23 +0200, wrote:
>> 19.03.2018 02:51 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done. It was a busy
>> > week-end :)
>> 
>> I appreciate your work. :-) Sorry for a kinda off-topic but could you
>> please visit the Patchwork site [1] and mark your committed patches
>> as committed, or ask someone to do it for you?
>
> It seems I can't mark patches submitted by other people, perhaps I just
> need to be added to the "Maintainers" list?

Indeed.

Carlos and Siddhesh, could you help Samuel?

For the record: Carlos and Siddhesh are the maintainers of our Patchwork
instance.
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS#Maintainers_for_the_patchwork_instance

I can't put your account in the maintainers list, but I can change the status
of the patches.
Are these all the patches pending an update there?
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?submitter=384

-- 
Tulio Magno

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 03/27/2018 09:46 AM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
> Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>> Rafal Luzynski, on mar. 27 mars 2018 01:13:23 +0200, wrote:
>>> 19.03.2018 02:51 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>> Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done. It was a busy
>>>> week-end :)
>>>
>>> I appreciate your work. :-) Sorry for a kinda off-topic but could you
>>> please visit the Patchwork site [1] and mark your committed patches
>>> as committed, or ask someone to do it for you?
>>
>> It seems I can't mark patches submitted by other people, perhaps I just
>> need to be added to the "Maintainers" list?
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Carlos and Siddhesh, could you help Samuel?

Fixed. I added Samuel to the maintainers list.

> For the record: Carlos and Siddhesh are the maintainers of our Patchwork
> instance.
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS#Maintainers_for_the_patchwork_instance
> 
> I can't put your account in the maintainers list, but I can change the status
> of the patches.
> Are these all the patches pending an update there?
> https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?submitter=384


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho, on mar. 27 mars 2018 11:46:32 -0300, wrote:
> Are these all the patches pending an update there?
> https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?submitter=384

No, it's not all of them, so it's really me who should work it out :)

Carlos O'Donell, on mar. 27 mars 2018 09:52:54 -0500, wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 09:46 AM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> writes:
> > 
> >> Rafal Luzynski, on mar. 27 mars 2018 01:13:23 +0200, wrote:
> >>> 19.03.2018 02:51 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> >>>> Thanks a lot for the feedback on what needs to be done. It was a busy
> >>>> week-end :)
> >>>
> >>> I appreciate your work. :-) Sorry for a kinda off-topic but could you
> >>> please visit the Patchwork site [1] and mark your committed patches
> >>> as committed, or ask someone to do it for you?
> >>
> >> It seems I can't mark patches submitted by other people, perhaps I just
> >> need to be added to the "Maintainers" list?
> > 
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > Carlos and Siddhesh, could you help Samuel?
> 
> Fixed. I added Samuel to the maintainers list.

Thanks!  It works indeed.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

So, after various coding style fixes etc. I eventually pushed htl.

This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
remaining TODOs, there are

- making testsuite pass
- fixing the generated errno file thing
- sharing tests between nptl and htl
- sharing pthread.h
- C11 threads


Concerning the testsuite, perhaps we could xfail the existing issues so
that build-glibcs i686-gnu succeeds?

Currently there are:

- header standard conformity issues: These will be hard to fix.
- elf/check-localplt: There will always be PLTs to libhurd/machuser.so
  anyway.
- elf/check-execstack: We have nested functions which make the stack
  executable indeed.
- check-abi-libmachuser, check-abi-libhurduser: These actually depend on
  .defs files in gnumach and hurd, so we can't really define ABI files.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Florian Weimer]

On 04/02/2018 02:10 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> - elf/check-execstack: We have nested functions which make the stack
>    executable indeed.

I looked at the Hurd situation last month.  Hurd is always 
read-implies-exec, I think.  So there is no need to make the stacks 
executable, it does not have any observable effect on execution and 
therefore cannot be tested.

Thanks,
Florian

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Florian Weimer, on lun. 02 avril 2018 09:51:00 +0200, wrote:
> On 04/02/2018 02:10 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > - elf/check-execstack: We have nested functions which make the stack
> >    executable indeed.
> 
> I looked at the Hurd situation last month.  Hurd is always
> read-implies-exec, I think.

Nobody has implemented NX in gnumach yet, but that doesn't mean nobody
will.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> - header standard conformity issues: These will be hard to fix.

What are the issues here?

> - elf/check-localplt: There will always be PLTs to libhurd/machuser.so
>   anyway.

If a library has *local* PLT entries - PLT entries for within-library 
calls to other functions in that shared library - that are hard to fix to 
use hidden aliases, it's expected that the localplt.data files will list 
those as expected (with a "?" if the PLT entry may or may not be present 
depending on compiler version etc., as is the case for some configurations 
where functions get exported from both libgcc and glibc).

> - elf/check-execstack: We have nested functions which make the stack
>   executable indeed.

That's pointers to nested functions involving creation of trampolines?  
Do those nested functions actually improve the code or would it be cleaner 
(have cleaner internal interfaces etc.) without them?  Do all libraries 
have these or only some?

> - check-abi-libmachuser, check-abi-libhurduser: These actually depend on
>   .defs files in gnumach and hurd, so we can't really define ABI files.

Depend in what way?  Are you saying they export different symbols 
depending on the versions of gnumach and hurd glibc is built with?  How 
are symbol versions for such extra symbols determined - based on gnumach 
and hurd versions instead of glibc versions?

It's clearly desirable to be able to make sure that old symbol versions 
don't change.  But if the contents of those versions are determined by 
gnumach and hurd, maybe those packages need to install ABI baselines for 
the glibc tests (or something like that).

The nearest analogue I see in glibc for systems using the Linux kernel 
(without more information on how the gnumach/hurd dependency works) is the 
syscall lists - where we have a list in glibc of all possible syscall 
names (sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/syscall-names.list), and a test will fail 
if the kernel has additional syscalls and is not newer than the version 
listed in that list (so using a different kernel version does not result 
in test failures, but the test is fully effective if the listed kernel 
version or an older kernel version is used).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on lun. 02 avril 2018 14:17:38 +0000, wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> > - header standard conformity issues: These will be hard to fix.
> 
> What are the issues here?

Some of these are small, like ./bits/types/sigevent_t.h's
sigev_notify_attributes not being pthread_attr_t*

Others need some work, like the missing SA_SIGINFO, for which we have
patches which need polishing and committing.

Others need implementing, like SA_NOCLDWAIT.

Others just need defining, like IUCLC, IXANY, etc.

There are a few remaining namespace issues due to missing __ marking or
spurious #includes.

So those, we can fix them.


Others really pose problem, like ./sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/fcntl.h's
l_type/l_whence being int instead of short.

There is also sys/un.h which defines a sun_len field, which IIRC is to
be expected on BSD systems, but not defined in Posix?

Also, ioctl takes (int, unsigned long int, ...) but
./conform/XPG42/stropts.h/conform.out wants (int, int, ...)?

> > - elf/check-localplt: There will always be PLTs to libhurd/machuser.so
> >   anyway.
> 
> If a library has *local* PLT entries -

Ah.  I got confused by the presence of __vm_allocate which is an RPC,
but we actually have a non-RPC version inside libc.so itself.  There are
a hundred of them mostly in libc.so, ld.so, libpthread.so

> PLT entries for within-library calls to other functions in that shared
> library - that are hard to fix to use hidden aliases, it's expected
> that the localplt.data files will list those as expected

Ok.

> > - elf/check-execstack: We have nested functions which make the stack
> >   executable indeed.
> 
> That's pointers to nested functions involving creation of trampolines?  

Yes.

> Do those nested functions actually improve the code

Yes.  There are notably callbacks whose parameters don't permit to get
the context parameters etc.

>  Do all libraries have these or only some?

Only libc.so, ld.so and libpthread.so have them.

> > - check-abi-libmachuser, check-abi-libhurduser: These actually depend on
> >   .defs files in gnumach and hurd, so we can't really define ABI files.
> 
> Depend in what way?  Are you saying they export different symbols 
> depending on the versions of gnumach and hurd glibc is built with?

That is it, yes.

> How are symbol versions for such extra symbols determined - based on
> gnumach and hurd versions instead of glibc versions?

That was not actually settled, but I guess it should be gnumach and hurd
versions.

> maybe those packages need to install ABI baselines for the glibc tests
> (or something like that).

Indeed.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Samuel Thibault, on lun. 02 avril 2018 17:50:17 +0200, wrote:
> There are a few remaining namespace issues due to missing __ marking or
> spurious #includes.

One issue is with struct sched_param.  The __sched_param definition
was removed in glibc while htl's pthread_attr uses it.  For now I just
made struct___pthread_attr.h include <sched.h> but that brings things
unwanted for <sys/types.h> (which is supposed to pull pthread_attr).

So I guess we should revert to defining __sched_param?

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Samuel Thibault, on lun. 02 avril 2018 17:50:17 +0200, wrote:
> > There are a few remaining namespace issues due to missing __ marking or
> > spurious #includes.
> 
> One issue is with struct sched_param.  The __sched_param definition
> was removed in glibc while htl's pthread_attr uses it.  For now I just
> made struct___pthread_attr.h include <sched.h> but that brings things
> unwanted for <sys/types.h> (which is supposed to pull pthread_attr).
> 
> So I guess we should revert to defining __sched_param?

If you need, on Hurd, in installed headers, a type "struct __sched_param", 
that would most naturally go in a Hurd-specific 
bits/types/struct___sched_param.h.  If that's not appropriate, please 
explain the issue in more detail.  Anything restoring the old __need_* 
mechanism for any glibc-internal definitions is not appropriate (struct 
__sched_param was removed as part of removing __need_*).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Joseph Myers, le mar. 03 avril 2018 00:13:43 +0000, a ecrit:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault, on lun. 02 avril 2018 17:50:17 +0200, wrote:
> > > There are a few remaining namespace issues due to missing __ marking or
> > > spurious #includes.
> > 
> > One issue is with struct sched_param.  The __sched_param definition
> > was removed in glibc while htl's pthread_attr uses it.  For now I just
> > made struct___pthread_attr.h include <sched.h> but that brings things
> > unwanted for <sys/types.h> (which is supposed to pull pthread_attr).
> > 
> > So I guess we should revert to defining __sched_param?
> 
> If you need, on Hurd, in installed headers, a type "struct __sched_param", 
> that would most naturally go in a Hurd-specific 
> bits/types/struct___sched_param.h.

Well, there is actually nothing hurd-specific in struct sched_param,
except the fact that the __sched_param name is needed so
sys/types.h can have pthread_attr (which uses it) without exposing
sched_param, as required by some levels of standard (e.g.
./conform/POSIX/fcntl.h/conform.out complains about the presence of
sched_param currently). Linux doesn't have that issue because it just
always completely hides the content of pthread types.

The patch below would just introduce bits/types/struct___sched_param.h.
and bits/types/struct_sched_param.h for all ports since it's the same.

> Anything restoring the old __need_* mechanism for any glibc-internal
> definitions is not appropriate

Sure!

Samuel

diff --git a/bits/sched.h b/bits/sched.h
index 8d9f077eee..bdd94c969d 100644
--- a/bits/sched.h
+++ b/bits/sched.h
@@ -29,10 +29,6 @@
 #define SCHED_FIFO	1
 #define SCHED_RR	2
 
-/* Data structure to describe a process' schedulability.  */
-struct sched_param
-{
-  int sched_priority;
-};
+#include <bits/types/struct_sched_param.h>
 
 #endif /* bits/sched.h */
diff --git a/bits/types/struct___sched_param.h b/bits/types/struct___sched_param.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a6d95bfd61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bits/types/struct___sched_param.h
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* Sched parameter structure.  Generic version.
+   Copyright (C) 1996-2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+   This file is part of the GNU C Library.
+
+   The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+   modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+   License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+   version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+   The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
+   Lesser General Public License for more details.
+
+   You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+   License along with the GNU C Library;  if not, see
+   <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  */
+
+#ifndef _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT___SCHED_PARAM
+#define _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT___SCHED_PARAM	1
+
+/* Data structure to describe a process' schedulability.  */
+struct __sched_param
+{
+  int __sched_priority;
+};
+
+#endif /* bits/types/struct___sched_param.h */
diff --git a/bits/types/struct_sched_param.h b/bits/types/struct_sched_param.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..416d8bf8c4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bits/types/struct_sched_param.h
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+/* Sched parameter structure.  Generic version.
+   Copyright (C) 1996-2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+   This file is part of the GNU C Library.
+
+   The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+   modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+   License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+   version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+   The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
+   Lesser General Public License for more details.
+
+   You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+   License along with the GNU C Library;  if not, see
+   <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  */
+
+#ifndef _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT_SCHED_PARAM
+#define _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT_SCHED_PARAM	1
+
+#include <bits/types/struct___sched_param.h>
+/* Define the real names for the elements of `struct sched_param'.  */
+#define sched_param __sched_param
+#define sched_priority __sched_priority
+
+#endif /* bits/types/struct_sched_param.h */
diff --git a/posix/Makefile b/posix/Makefile
index 51dcf129ec..2a1cb2dd47 100644
--- a/posix/Makefile
+++ b/posix/Makefile
@@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ headers	:= sys/utsname.h sys/times.h sys/wait.h sys/types.h unistd.h	      \
 	   bits/local_lim.h tar.h bits/utsname.h bits/confname.h	      \
 	   bits/waitflags.h bits/waitstatus.h sys/unistd.h sched.h	      \
 	   bits/sched.h bits/cpu-set.h re_comp.h wait.h bits/environments.h   \
-	   cpio.h spawn.h bits/unistd.h
+	   cpio.h spawn.h bits/unistd.h					      \
+	   bits/types/struct___sched_param.h bits/types/struct_sched_param.h
 
 routines :=								      \
 	uname								      \
diff --git a/posix/sched.h b/posix/sched.h
index 619b3b3a81..4d985ab37f 100644
--- a/posix/sched.h
+++ b/posix/sched.h
@@ -43,11 +43,6 @@ typedef __pid_t pid_t;
 #include <bits/sched.h>
 #include <bits/cpu-set.h>
 
-/* Backward compatibility.  */
-#define sched_priority    sched_priority
-#define __sched_priority  sched_priority
-
-
 __BEGIN_DECLS
 
 /* Set scheduling parameters for a process.  */
diff --git a/sysdeps/htl/bits/types/struct___pthread_attr.h b/sysdeps/htl/bits/types/struct___pthread_attr.h
index 2299c0179f..5c4b4e6c30 100644
--- a/sysdeps/htl/bits/types/struct___pthread_attr.h
+++ b/sysdeps/htl/bits/types/struct___pthread_attr.h
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 #ifndef _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT___PTHREAD_ATTR
 #define _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT___PTHREAD_ATTR	1
 
-#include <sched.h>
+#include <bits/types/struct___sched_param.h>
 
 #define __need_size_t
 #include <stddef.h>
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ enum __pthread_contentionscope;
    that not all of them are supported on all systems.  */
 struct __pthread_attr
 {
-  struct sched_param __schedparam;
+  struct __sched_param __schedparam;
   void *__stackaddr;
   size_t __stacksize;
   size_t __guardsize;
diff --git a/sysdeps/htl/pt-attr.c b/sysdeps/htl/pt-attr.c
index 77ecc73465..fc39aa63d6 100644
--- a/sysdeps/htl/pt-attr.c
+++ b/sysdeps/htl/pt-attr.c
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
 #include <pt-internal.h>
 
 const struct __pthread_attr __pthread_default_attr = {
-  __schedparam: { sched_priority: 0 },
+  __schedparam: { __sched_priority: 0 },
   __stacksize: 0,
   __stackaddr: NULL,
 #ifdef PAGESIZE
diff --git a/sysdeps/htl/timer_routines.h b/sysdeps/htl/timer_routines.h
index a8134f510f..062128cf92 100644
--- a/sysdeps/htl/timer_routines.h
+++ b/sysdeps/htl/timer_routines.h
@@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ thread_attr_compare (const pthread_attr_t * left, const pthread_attr_t * right)
   struct __pthread_attr *ileft = (struct __pthread_attr *) left;
   struct __pthread_attr *iright = (struct __pthread_attr *) right;
 
-  return ileft->__schedparam.sched_priority
-	   == iright->__schedparam.sched_priority
+  return ileft->__schedparam.__sched_priority
+	   == iright->__schedparam.__sched_priority
 	 && ileft->__stackaddr == iright->__stackaddr
 	 && ileft->__stacksize == iright->__stacksize
 	 && ileft->__guardsize == iright->__guardsize
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sched.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sched.h
index 24159c57b3..34f27a7d9b 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sched.h
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sched.h
@@ -71,11 +71,7 @@
 # define CLONE_IO	0x80000000	/* Clone I/O context.  */
 #endif
 
-/* Data structure to describe a process' schedulability.  */
-struct sched_param
-{
-  int sched_priority;
-};
+#include <bits/types/struct_sched_param.h>
 
 __BEGIN_DECLS
 

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> The patch below would just introduce bits/types/struct___sched_param.h.
> and bits/types/struct_sched_param.h for all ports since it's the same.

A bits/types/struct_sched_param.h that does "#define sched_param 
__sched_param" is not appropriate for Linux, because it would change the 
C++ mangling of struct sched_param.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, le mar. 17 avril 2018 23:02:45 +0000, a ecrit:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> > The patch below would just introduce bits/types/struct___sched_param.h.
> > and bits/types/struct_sched_param.h for all ports since it's the same.
> 
> A bits/types/struct_sched_param.h that does "#define sched_param 
> __sched_param" is not appropriate for Linux, because it would change the 
> C++ mangling of struct sched_param.

Oh.

So that could be as per below?

(the idea is to keep __sched_param close to sched_param so any future
extension would be done alongside).

Samuel

diff --git a/bits/sched.h b/bits/sched.h
index 8d9f077eee..bdd94c969d 100644
--- a/bits/sched.h
+++ b/bits/sched.h
@@ -29,10 +29,6 @@
 #define SCHED_FIFO	1
 #define SCHED_RR	2
 
-/* Data structure to describe a process' schedulability.  */
-struct sched_param
-{
-  int sched_priority;
-};
+#include <bits/types/struct_sched_param.h>
 
 #endif /* bits/sched.h */
diff --git a/bits/types/struct___sched_param.h b/bits/types/struct___sched_param.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a6d95bfd61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bits/types/struct___sched_param.h
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* Sched parameter structure.  Generic version.
+   Copyright (C) 1996-2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+   This file is part of the GNU C Library.
+
+   The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+   modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+   License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+   version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+   The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
+   Lesser General Public License for more details.
+
+   You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+   License along with the GNU C Library;  if not, see
+   <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  */
+
+#ifndef _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT___SCHED_PARAM
+#define _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT___SCHED_PARAM	1
+
+/* Data structure to describe a process' schedulability.  */
+struct __sched_param
+{
+  int __sched_priority;
+};
+
+#endif /* bits/types/struct___sched_param.h */
diff --git a/bits/types/struct_sched_param.h b/bits/types/struct_sched_param.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..60707023d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bits/types/struct_sched_param.h
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* Sched parameter structure.  Generic version.
+   Copyright (C) 1996-2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+   This file is part of the GNU C Library.
+
+   The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+   modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+   License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+   version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+   The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
+   Lesser General Public License for more details.
+
+   You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+   License along with the GNU C Library;  if not, see
+   <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  */
+
+#ifndef _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT_SCHED_PARAM
+#define _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT_SCHED_PARAM	1
+
+/* Data structure to describe a process' schedulability.  */
+struct sched_param
+{
+  int sched_priority;
+};
+
+#endif /* bits/types/struct_sched_param.h */
diff --git a/posix/Makefile b/posix/Makefile
index 51dcf129ec..2a1cb2dd47 100644
--- a/posix/Makefile
+++ b/posix/Makefile
@@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ headers	:= sys/utsname.h sys/times.h sys/wait.h sys/types.h unistd.h	      \
 	   bits/local_lim.h tar.h bits/utsname.h bits/confname.h	      \
 	   bits/waitflags.h bits/waitstatus.h sys/unistd.h sched.h	      \
 	   bits/sched.h bits/cpu-set.h re_comp.h wait.h bits/environments.h   \
-	   cpio.h spawn.h bits/unistd.h
+	   cpio.h spawn.h bits/unistd.h					      \
+	   bits/types/struct___sched_param.h bits/types/struct_sched_param.h
 
 routines :=								      \
 	uname								      \
diff --git a/sysdeps/htl/bits/types/struct___pthread_attr.h b/sysdeps/htl/bits/types/struct___pthread_attr.h
index 2299c0179f..5c4b4e6c30 100644
--- a/sysdeps/htl/bits/types/struct___pthread_attr.h
+++ b/sysdeps/htl/bits/types/struct___pthread_attr.h
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 #ifndef _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT___PTHREAD_ATTR
 #define _BITS_TYPES_STRUCT___PTHREAD_ATTR	1
 
-#include <sched.h>
+#include <bits/types/struct___sched_param.h>
 
 #define __need_size_t
 #include <stddef.h>
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ enum __pthread_contentionscope;
    that not all of them are supported on all systems.  */
 struct __pthread_attr
 {
-  struct sched_param __schedparam;
+  struct __sched_param __schedparam;
   void *__stackaddr;
   size_t __stacksize;
   size_t __guardsize;
diff --git a/sysdeps/htl/pt-attr.c b/sysdeps/htl/pt-attr.c
index 77ecc73465..fc39aa63d6 100644
--- a/sysdeps/htl/pt-attr.c
+++ b/sysdeps/htl/pt-attr.c
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
 #include <pt-internal.h>
 
 const struct __pthread_attr __pthread_default_attr = {
-  __schedparam: { sched_priority: 0 },
+  __schedparam: { __sched_priority: 0 },
   __stacksize: 0,
   __stackaddr: NULL,
 #ifdef PAGESIZE
diff --git a/sysdeps/htl/timer_routines.h b/sysdeps/htl/timer_routines.h
index a8134f510f..062128cf92 100644
--- a/sysdeps/htl/timer_routines.h
+++ b/sysdeps/htl/timer_routines.h
@@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ thread_attr_compare (const pthread_attr_t * left, const pthread_attr_t * right)
   struct __pthread_attr *ileft = (struct __pthread_attr *) left;
   struct __pthread_attr *iright = (struct __pthread_attr *) right;
 
-  return ileft->__schedparam.sched_priority
-	   == iright->__schedparam.sched_priority
+  return ileft->__schedparam.__sched_priority
+	   == iright->__schedparam.__sched_priority
 	 && ileft->__stackaddr == iright->__stackaddr
 	 && ileft->__stacksize == iright->__stacksize
 	 && ileft->__guardsize == iright->__guardsize
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sched.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sched.h
index 24159c57b3..34f27a7d9b 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sched.h
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sched.h
@@ -71,11 +71,7 @@
 # define CLONE_IO	0x80000000	/* Clone I/O context.  */
 #endif
 
-/* Data structure to describe a process' schedulability.  */
-struct sched_param
-{
-  int sched_priority;
-};
+#include <bits/types/struct_sched_param.h>
 
 __BEGIN_DECLS
 

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Joseph Myers, le mar. 17 avril 2018 23:02:45 +0000, a ecrit:
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > 
> > > The patch below would just introduce bits/types/struct___sched_param.h.
> > > and bits/types/struct_sched_param.h for all ports since it's the same.
> > 
> > A bits/types/struct_sched_param.h that does "#define sched_param 
> > __sched_param" is not appropriate for Linux, because it would change the 
> > C++ mangling of struct sched_param.
> 
> Oh.
> 
> So that could be as per below?

That seems plausible (this is not a review of this patch).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Zack Weinberg]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>> Joseph Myers, le mar. 17 avril 2018 23:02:45 +0000, a ecrit:
>> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> >
>> > > The patch below would just introduce bits/types/struct___sched_param.h.
>> > > and bits/types/struct_sched_param.h for all ports since it's the same.
>> >
>> > A bits/types/struct_sched_param.h that does "#define sched_param
>> > __sched_param" is not appropriate for Linux, because it would change the
>> > C++ mangling of struct sched_param.
>>
>> Oh.
>>
>> So that could be as per below?
>
> That seems plausible (this is not a review of this patch).

I have a concern: the types 'struct sched_param' and 'struct
__sched_param' are not compatible, even if their members are identical
(6.2.7p1 explicitly requires the tags to be the same for
compatibility).So if you have a 'struct __sched_param' embedded in
your pthread_attr_t, all of the code that copies between that field
and parameters or variables named 'struct sched_param' must do so
field-by-field or with 'memcpy'.  The compiler won't let you do a
straight-up structure assignment, but trying to get around that with
pointer tricks will produce undefined behavior.

zw

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Zack Weinberg, le mer. 18 avril 2018 09:54:53 -0400, a ecrit:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >
> >> Joseph Myers, le mar. 17 avril 2018 23:02:45 +0000, a ecrit:
> >> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > The patch below would just introduce bits/types/struct___sched_param.h.
> >> > > and bits/types/struct_sched_param.h for all ports since it's the same.
> >> >
> >> > A bits/types/struct_sched_param.h that does "#define sched_param
> >> > __sched_param" is not appropriate for Linux, because it would change the
> >> > C++ mangling of struct sched_param.
> >>
> >> Oh.
> >>
> >> So that could be as per below?
> >
> > That seems plausible (this is not a review of this patch).
> 
> I have a concern: the types 'struct sched_param' and 'struct
> __sched_param' are not compatible, even if their members are identical
> (6.2.7p1 explicitly requires the tags to be the same for
> compatibility).

Ah, probably that's why bits/sched.h used to define both sched_param and
__sched_param with the __sched_priority field, and #define
sched_priority to __sched_priority.  I can do that, it's fine.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Zack Weinberg]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Samuel Thibault
<samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have a concern: the types 'struct sched_param' and 'struct
>> __sched_param' are not compatible, even if their members are identical
>> (6.2.7p1 explicitly requires the tags to be the same for
>> compatibility).
>
> Ah, probably that's why bits/sched.h used to define both sched_param and
> __sched_param with the __sched_priority field, and #define
> sched_priority to __sched_priority.  I can do that, it's fine.

This is actually worse than having struct sched_param defined by
sys/types.h, because sched.h is now defining *macro* names that it's
not supposed to.  It's far more likely that a program will try to
define a variable named 'sched_priority' than that it will try to
define its own 'struct sched_param'.

Can I ask whether you want to keep exposing the internals of pthread_*
types to applications?  If there's a plan to stop doing that - even a
"yeah but it's hard and we have so many other things to do first"
intention - then I would recommend leaving sched_param alone for now
and just XFAILing the conformance test.  On the other hand, if you
actively want to keep them exposed and encourage applications to use
them, then there does need to be some kind of workaround.

zw

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Zack Weinberg, le mer. 18 avril 2018 14:40:29 -0400, a ecrit:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Samuel Thibault
> <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have a concern: the types 'struct sched_param' and 'struct
> >> __sched_param' are not compatible, even if their members are identical
> >> (6.2.7p1 explicitly requires the tags to be the same for
> >> compatibility).
> >
> > Ah, probably that's why bits/sched.h used to define both sched_param and
> > __sched_param with the __sched_priority field, and #define
> > sched_priority to __sched_priority.  I can do that, it's fine.
> 
> This is actually worse than having struct sched_param defined by
> sys/types.h, because sched.h is now defining *macro* names that it's
> not supposed to.  It's far more likely that a program will try to
> define a variable named 'sched_priority' than that it will try to
> define its own 'struct sched_param'.

Sure. glibc just has been #defining sched_priority for a very long time
already :)

> Can I ask whether you want to keep exposing the internals of pthread_*
> types to applications?  If there's a plan to stop doing that - even a
> "yeah but it's hard and we have so many other things to do first"
> intention - then I would recommend leaving sched_param alone for now
> and just XFAILing the conformance test.

That's it indeed.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Others really pose problem, like ./sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/fcntl.h's
> l_type/l_whence being int instead of short.

Where something is problematic to fix, because a fix would break the ABI 
or needs some external feature, there is an xfail mechanism internal to 
the conform tests.  It involves a bug being filed in Bugzilla for the 
issue in question, an addition to conformtest-xfail-conds (conditional on 
ifeq ($(subdir),conform)) in an appropriate sysdeps Makefile, with a 
comment referencing the bug, and xfail[cond]- on the relevant expectation 
in the relevant -data file, again with a comment referencing the bug.  
For example:

// Bug 17786: st_dev has wrong type.
xfail[mips-o32-linux]-element {struct stat} dev_t st_dev

Before doing any such XFAILing, you should check that the expectation is 
actually backed up by the relevant standard and that a fix really does 
need an ABI change or a new feature.  Also, this XFAIL mechanism can only 
be used for positive expectations that are failing - it can't be used for 
cases where the header violates the expected namespace.

> There is also sys/un.h which defines a sun_len field, which IIRC is to
> be expected on BSD systems, but not defined in Posix?

Well, in fact POSIX reserves sun_* for sys/un.h (note the reservations are 
in a separate part of the standard from the main definitions of header 
contents), so there's a bug in the expectations not allowing for it.  This 
illustrates the need for checking such failures against the standards to 
see where the bug is.

> Also, ioctl takes (int, unsigned long int, ...) but
> ./conform/XPG42/stropts.h/conform.out wants (int, int, ...)?

That's already generically XFAILed with reference to bug 14362.

> > Do those nested functions actually improve the code
> 
> Yes.  There are notably callbacks whose parameters don't permit to get
> the context parameters etc.
> 
> >  Do all libraries have these or only some?
> 
> Only libc.so, ld.so and libpthread.so have them.

Then maybe some mechanism is needed for sysdeps Makefiles to define 
libraries expected to have executable stacks.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, le mar. 03 avril 2018 00:10:30 +0000, a ecrit:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Others really pose problem, like ./sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/fcntl.h's
> > l_type/l_whence being int instead of short.
> 
> Where something is problematic to fix, because a fix would break the ABI 
> or needs some external feature, there is an xfail mechanism internal to 
> the conform tests.

Ok, thanks for the info, I could work it out :)

There are some ABI-compatible changes which can be made.  One of them is
struct shmid_ds's shm_segsz which is int but should be size_t.  That is
defined as int in both ./sysvipc/sys/shm.h and ./sysdeps/gnu/bits/shm.h.
I have checked that the kfreebsd port uses its own shm.h that defines it
to size_t.  I'd tend to think that we do not have any 64bit port using
./sysvipc/sys/shm.h or ./sysdeps/gnu/bits/shm.h, and thus we can just
fix them into size_t since on 32bit ports it is ABI-compatible with int?
(except the bitness, but I guess it does not problems in practice?)

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Samuel Thibault, le jeu. 19 avril 2018 01:57:49 +0200, a ecrit:
> I'd tend to think that we do not have any 64bit port using
> ./sysvipc/sys/shm.h
(I meant include/bits/shm.h here)
> or ./sysdeps/gnu/bits/shm.h, and thus we can just fix them into size_t
> since on 32bit ports it is ABI-compatible with int? (except the
> bitness, but I guess it does not problems in practice?)

ping?
(Linux has its own bits/shm.h, the kfreebsd port has its own bits/shm.h)

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
> remaining TODOs, there are

Thanks!  I'd add: the "requires out-of-tree patches" statement in README 
needs to be removed, and a NEWS entry is needed.  Will you be able to 
provide full execution test results for the testsuite on the per-release 
wiki pages for 2.28 and later releases, during each release freeze period?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Joseph Myers, on lun. 02 avril 2018 14:22:28 +0000, wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> > This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
> > remaining TODOs, there are
> 
> Thanks!  I'd add: the "requires out-of-tree patches" statement in README 
> needs to be removed,

Oh, I was unaware of that mention.

> and a NEWS entry is needed.

Right :)

> Will you be able to provide full execution test results for the
> testsuite on the per-release wiki pages for 2.28 and later releases,
> during each release freeze period?

Now that it does build and run quite fine, sure! :)

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Joseph Myers, on lun. 02 avril 2018 14:22:28 +0000, wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>
>> > This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
>> > remaining TODOs, there are
>>
>> Thanks!  I'd add: the "requires out-of-tree patches" statement in README
>> needs to be removed,
>
> Oh, I was unaware of that mention.
>
>

mig master branch failed to build on Fedora 27:

gcc  -g -O2   -o migcom error.o global.o header.o lexxer.o migcom.o
parser.o routine.o server.o statement.o string.o type.o user.o utils.o
vprint.o
/usr/local/bin/ld: lexxer.o: in function `yylex':
/export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lexxer.c:1834:
undefined reference to `yywrap'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[3]: *** [Makefile:495: migcom] Error 1


H.J.

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 09:01:30 -0700, wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Joseph Myers, on lun. 02 avril 2018 14:22:28 +0000, wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >>
> >> > This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
> >> > remaining TODOs, there are
> >>
> >> Thanks!  I'd add: the "requires out-of-tree patches" statement in README
> >> needs to be removed,
> >
> > Oh, I was unaware of that mention.
> 
> mig master branch failed to build on Fedora 27:
> 
> gcc  -g -O2   -o migcom error.o global.o header.o lexxer.o migcom.o
> parser.o routine.o server.o statement.o string.o type.o user.o utils.o
> vprint.o
> /usr/local/bin/ld: lexxer.o: in function `yylex':
> /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lexxer.c:1834:
> undefined reference to `yywrap'

Could you post config.log?  configure is supposed to detect this:

checking lex library... -lfl

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 09:01:30 -0700, wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Joseph Myers, on lun. 02 avril 2018 14:22:28 +0000, wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
>> >> > remaining TODOs, there are
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!  I'd add: the "requires out-of-tree patches" statement in README
>> >> needs to be removed,
>> >
>> > Oh, I was unaware of that mention.
>>
>> mig master branch failed to build on Fedora 27:
>>
>> gcc  -g -O2   -o migcom error.o global.o header.o lexxer.o migcom.o
>> parser.o routine.o server.o statement.o string.o type.o user.o utils.o
>> vprint.o
>> /usr/local/bin/ld: lexxer.o: in function `yylex':
>> /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lexxer.c:1834:
>> undefined reference to `yywrap'
>
> Could you post config.log?  configure is supposed to detect this:
>
> checking lex library... -lfl
>

checking lex library... none needed

-- 
H.J.

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 10:06:14 -0700, wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 09:01:30 -0700, wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > Joseph Myers, on lun. 02 avril 2018 14:22:28 +0000, wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
> >> >> > remaining TODOs, there are
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!  I'd add: the "requires out-of-tree patches" statement in README
> >> >> needs to be removed,
> >> >
> >> > Oh, I was unaware of that mention.
> >>
> >> mig master branch failed to build on Fedora 27:
> >>
> >> gcc  -g -O2   -o migcom error.o global.o header.o lexxer.o migcom.o
> >> parser.o routine.o server.o statement.o string.o type.o user.o utils.o
> >> vprint.o
> >> /usr/local/bin/ld: lexxer.o: in function `yylex':
> >> /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lexxer.c:1834:
> >> undefined reference to `yywrap'
> >
> > Could you post config.log?  configure is supposed to detect this:
> >
> > checking lex library... -lfl
> 
> checking lex library... none needed

Please really config.log, not only the configure output.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Samuel Thibault
<samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 10:06:14 -0700, wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 09:01:30 -0700, wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> >
>> >> > Joseph Myers, on lun. 02 avril 2018 14:22:28 +0000, wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
>> >> >> > remaining TODOs, there are
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks!  I'd add: the "requires out-of-tree patches" statement in README
>> >> >> needs to be removed,
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, I was unaware of that mention.
>> >>
>> >> mig master branch failed to build on Fedora 27:
>> >>
>> >> gcc  -g -O2   -o migcom error.o global.o header.o lexxer.o migcom.o
>> >> parser.o routine.o server.o statement.o string.o type.o user.o utils.o
>> >> vprint.o
>> >> /usr/local/bin/ld: lexxer.o: in function `yylex':
>> >> /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lexxer.c:1834:
>> >> undefined reference to `yywrap'
>> >
>> > Could you post config.log?  configure is supposed to detect this:
>> >
>> > checking lex library... -lfl
>>
>> checking lex library... none needed
>
> Please really config.log, not only the configure output.
>

configure:4096: checking lex library
configure:4110: gcc -o conftest -g -O2   conftest.c   >&5
/usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `input':
/export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lex.yy.c:1185:
undefined reference to `yywrap'
/usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `yylex':
/export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lex.yy.c:879:
undefined reference to `yywrap'
/usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `main':
/export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/conftest.l:18:
undefined reference to `yywrap'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
configure:4110: $? = 1
....
configure:4460: result: no
...
configure: exit 0


-- 
H.J.

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 10:22:31 -0700, wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Samuel Thibault
> <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 10:06:14 -0700, wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> > H.J. Lu, on lun. 02 avril 2018 09:01:30 -0700, wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Joseph Myers, on lun. 02 avril 2018 14:22:28 +0000, wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
> >> >> >> > remaining TODOs, there are
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks!  I'd add: the "requires out-of-tree patches" statement in README
> >> >> >> needs to be removed,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oh, I was unaware of that mention.
> >> >>
> >> >> mig master branch failed to build on Fedora 27:
> >> >>
> >> >> gcc  -g -O2   -o migcom error.o global.o header.o lexxer.o migcom.o
> >> >> parser.o routine.o server.o statement.o string.o type.o user.o utils.o
> >> >> vprint.o
> >> >> /usr/local/bin/ld: lexxer.o: in function `yylex':
> >> >> /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lexxer.c:1834:
> >> >> undefined reference to `yywrap'
> >> >
> >> > Could you post config.log?  configure is supposed to detect this:
> >> >
> >> > checking lex library... -lfl
> >>
> >> checking lex library... none needed
> >
> > Please really config.log, not only the configure output.
> >
> 
> configure:4096: checking lex library
> configure:4110: gcc -o conftest -g -O2   conftest.c   >&5
> /usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `input':
> /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lex.yy.c:1185:
> undefined reference to `yywrap'
> /usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `yylex':
> /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lex.yy.c:879:
> undefined reference to `yywrap'
> /usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `main':
> /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/conftest.l:18:
> undefined reference to `yywrap'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> configure:4110: $? = 1
> ....
> configure:4460: result: no

Please really post config.log (or send it privately). "result: no" here
is not related to "checking lex library".

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Samuel Thibault, on lun. 02 avril 2018 19:35:11 +0200, wrote:
> > configure:4096: checking lex library
> > configure:4110: gcc -o conftest -g -O2   conftest.c   >&5
> > /usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `input':
> > /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lex.yy.c:1185:
> > undefined reference to `yywrap'
> > /usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `yylex':
> > /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/lex.yy.c:879:
> > undefined reference to `yywrap'
> > /usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccDAnO2r.o: in function `main':
> > /export/gnu/import/git/toolchain/build/compilers/i686-gnu/mig/conftest.l:18:
> > undefined reference to `yywrap'
> > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> > configure:4110: $? = 1
> > ....
> > configure:4460: result: no
> 
> Please really post config.log (or send it privately). "result: no" here
> is not related to "checking lex library".

I guess you don't have libfl-devel on your system, and apparently
autoconf's programs.m4 doesn't actually handle that case.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
> remaining TODOs, there are

If you use mainline GCC, however, it fails:

../sysdeps/mach/hurd/if_index.c: In function '__if_nametoindex':
../sysdeps/mach/hurd/if_index.c:40:3: error: 'strncpy' specified bound 16 equals destination size [-Werror=stringop-truncation]
   strncpy (ifr.ifr_name, ifname, IFNAMSIZ);
   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on mar. 03 avril 2018 15:45:13 +0000, wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> > This means that build-glibcs i686-gnu now builds fine.  Among the
> > remaining TODOs, there are
> 
> If you use mainline GCC, however, it fails:
> 
> ../sysdeps/mach/hurd/if_index.c: In function '__if_nametoindex':
> ../sysdeps/mach/hurd/if_index.c:40:3: error: 'strncpy' specified bound 16 equals destination size [-Werror=stringop-truncation]
>    strncpy (ifr.ifr_name, ifname, IFNAMSIZ);
>    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, a real bug indeed :)

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

The build for i686-gnu also fails using GCC 6 branch with 
build-many-glibcs.py:

hurdsig.c: In function 'interrupted_reply_port_location.isra.1':
hurdsig.c:250:39: error: 'portloc' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
   *(volatile mach_port_t *) portloc = *portloc;
                                       ^~~~~~~~

I haven't investigated whether this warning is valid, or whether it's 
bogus (in which case we don't add initializations just to fix warnings, 
but may used DIAG_*_NEEDS_COMMENT with appropriate explanations of what 
warning appears and why it is bogus).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on mar. 03 avril 2018 21:48:32 +0000, wrote:
> The build for i686-gnu also fails using GCC 6 branch with 
> build-many-glibcs.py:
> 
> hurdsig.c: In function 'interrupted_reply_port_location.isra.1':
> hurdsig.c:250:39: error: 'portloc' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>    *(volatile mach_port_t *) portloc = *portloc;
>                                        ^~~~~~~~
> 
> I haven't investigated whether this warning is valid, or whether it's 
> bogus

Well, it's completely bogus: portloc is initialized just above. I don't
understand why it wouldn't see that.

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> Joseph Myers, on mar. 03 avril 2018 21:48:32 +0000, wrote:
>> The build for i686-gnu also fails using GCC 6 branch with
>> build-many-glibcs.py:
>>
>> hurdsig.c: In function 'interrupted_reply_port_location.isra.1':
>> hurdsig.c:250:39: error: 'portloc' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>>    *(volatile mach_port_t *) portloc = *portloc;
>>                                        ^~~~~~~~
>>
>> I haven't investigated whether this warning is valid, or whether it's
>> bogus
>
> Well, it's completely bogus: portloc is initialized just above. I don't
> understand why it wouldn't see that.

I think it thinks the *value pointed-to by portloc* is uninitialized.
Writing that value to a volatile memory location (which happens to be
the same memory location, but you specifically told it not to pay
attention to that with the volatile cast) is therefore invalid.

I don't know this code well enough to suggest what you might could do
about that.  Since the warning does not happen with GCC 7 or 8 I would
be fine with suppressing the diagnostic.

zw

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Joseph Myers, on mar. 03 avril 2018 21:48:32 +0000, wrote:
> >> The build for i686-gnu also fails using GCC 6 branch with
> >> build-many-glibcs.py:
> >>
> >> hurdsig.c: In function 'interrupted_reply_port_location.isra.1':
> >> hurdsig.c:250:39: error: 'portloc' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> >>    *(volatile mach_port_t *) portloc = *portloc;
> >>                                        ^~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> I haven't investigated whether this warning is valid, or whether it's
> >> bogus
> >
> > Well, it's completely bogus: portloc is initialized just above. I don't
> > understand why it wouldn't see that.
> 
> I think it thinks the *value pointed-to by portloc* is uninitialized.

This is just after a call to _hurdsig_catch_memory_fault, which is a macro 
involving a call to setjmp.  I think the returns-twice nature of setjmp is 
confusing the compiler into thinking portloc itself is uninitialized (I 
don't know why this particular warning) - in fact, the second return of 
setjmp will never reach the code getting the warning (as setjmp will 
return nonzero, so _hurdsig_catch_memory_fault will).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Florian Weimer]

On 04/03/2018 11:58 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Joseph Myers, on mar. 03 avril 2018 21:48:32 +0000, wrote:
>> The build for i686-gnu also fails using GCC 6 branch with
>> build-many-glibcs.py:
>>
>> hurdsig.c: In function 'interrupted_reply_port_location.isra.1':
>> hurdsig.c:250:39: error: 'portloc' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>>     *(volatile mach_port_t *) portloc = *portloc;
>>                                         ^~~~~~~~
>>
>> I haven't investigated whether this warning is valid, or whether it's
>> bogus
> 
> Well, it's completely bogus: portloc is initialized just above. I don't
> understand why it wouldn't see that.

You will have to look at the GIMPLE or assembler to determine if the 
warning is bogus after GCC has processed the setjmp call.  It may very 
well be the case that after those transformations, there *is* an 
uninitialized use of portloc.

Suppressing the warning could be the wrong thing to do here.  You may 
have to declare portloc itself volatile.

Thanks a lot for all these Hurd changes, by the way.  I really 
appreciate your work.

Thanks,
Florian

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Samuel Thibault]

Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 13:47:42 +0000, wrote:
> (I'd also suggest that it *not* use a top-level directory called
> simply "libpthread" or similar without mention of Hurd, as that would
> be too confusing to people looking at the source tree for pthreads for
> other platforms.)

Sure :)

kFreeBSD/GNU used fbtl (FreeBSD Thread Library), perhaps htl? (Hurd
Thread Library)

Samuel

Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Joseph Myers, on jeu. 18 janv. 2018 13:47:42 +0000, wrote:
> > (I'd also suggest that it *not* use a top-level directory called
> > simply "libpthread" or similar without mention of Hurd, as that would
> > be too confusing to people looking at the source tree for pthreads for
> > other platforms.)
> 
> Sure :)
> 
> kFreeBSD/GNU used fbtl (FreeBSD Thread Library), perhaps htl? (Hurd
> Thread Library)

Seems reasonable to me.

Longer-term, once the support is in, it would be good to know how the API 
exposed for pthreads on Hurd compares to the NPTL API.  Right now, we have 
very little documentation for threads, but in principle it would be good 
to have thorough documentation for the pthreads API, and for the API to be 
the same between different OSes rather than having some interfaces only 
supported on some OSes.  (Then most of pthread.h could be shared between 
the different implementations - duplicating all the function declarations 
and associated feature test macro conditionals for them is not ideal.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com