From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10364 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2019 18:16:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10293 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jan 2019 18:16:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=shame, publicly X-HELO: smtprelay.synopsys.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=synopsys.com; s=mail; t=1548872175; bh=uUtJ9hNLBPpR8KQ+YN/OzX+XJ/vqMynpOZiQcQKgchc=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=hVn+q+/5sujMOTsn1/hGMsC8MOuDbmFbyPta3nYXC6MeJmOsoPMG3QAKjv+M9Mmn5 023DaN3mjL67tHqovfVpXDBzx759xGFMe91vzfTR29JG6dpwMiCtbW5BTxU+5ZivaL Zsd9yS2egBV/IDKgyMyuYbOPBPIZKT1LVOIf8Ee0VzTpUpiFCNdnbN4M7eCH70Y1Yx V1ypW6hAbqvLRiC3vfu0foT+O9CFm/eca4rTx02b3Pa+WgE3ZUGTu/NFdVx1fpWTZf jGY2MbliOuvQXEo/9K3Gpa2dHxPkx5BMxRLUboS2iYYJLQrXLSYt2UJAAC5TlCxq7f B1921N44ohqJg== Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] glibc port to ARC processors To: Joseph Myers CC: , Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel.arc,gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha References: <1548811555-24373-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> From: Vineet Gupta Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <980d8411-e4b9-24c0-3340-c112d6d6c349@synopsys.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:16:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00696.txt.bz2 On 1/29/19 6:29 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > In the absence of clear consensus regarding consideration of new ports to > undocumented architectures (which would need to result in consensus on > suitable rules on the subject to go in > ), and in the absence of > suitable public architecture and ABI documentation, I don't intend to > attempt review of this or subsequent versions of the port submission. That would be really unfortunate. Your prior reviews of RFC and v1 have been immensely helpful, it would be a shame to not continue to get this privilege goinf fwd. Having said that, wheels were already set in motion after your initial request in December. The ARCv2 ABI spec was opened up quickly (and mea culpa for not referencing it v2 submission). It is now publicly accessibly at [1] The public version of PRM is being worked on, but it will take time to come to fruition. I hope you appreciate these things take time, considering where we came from - and it seems you found a workaround anyways ;-) > (I > am supposing that the documentation available at > - which in any case does not include > an ABI reference - is for an architecture version too old to be sufficient > for understanding and maintaining the port code as may be needed in the > course of glibc maintenance.) Not really. It sure pertains to the predecessor ARCompact ISA, but in ARCv2 the bulk of changes were to Interrupt architecture, micro-architecture optimizations, SMP support etc, which are not relevant for glibc or general userspace coding. While the encodings etc did change, much of the baseline instruction set is pretty much the same, so ARCv2 assembly or generated code easily maps to ARCompact. I do hope this is enough for you to reconsider reviewing the code. Thx, -Vineet [1] https://github.com/foss-for-synopsys-dwc-arc-processors/toolchain/wiki/files/ARCv2_ABI.pdf