From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5091 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2018 20:52:10 -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 5079 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jan 2018 20:52:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=wm, WM, H*Ad:U*patches, jones X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:52:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: "Richard W.M. Jones" CC: Palmer Dabbelt , , Andrew Waterman , Darius Rad , , Subject: Re: RISC-V glibc port, v5 In-Reply-To: <20180125195933.GC24629@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20180125043621.19972-1-palmer@dabbelt.com> <20180125195933.GC24629@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00857.txt.bz2 On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I don't speak for Palmer nor SiFive, but from my point of view the > urgency to get this in glibc 2.27 is so we can get a stable ABI, which > we can then use to sanely port Fedora & Debian over to RISC-V. Well, I'd suggest daily (at least) submissions of revised versions of the port until we converge on something with no more issues found in review and that has sufficiently good test results for all the supported configurations. Even if a port variant is known to build OK but the tests are still running, it may be worth posting the patches for review so issues are found sooner. It's up to the people submitting the port what configurations are supported, now or in the future - there could be from 1 to 12 ABIs, as I understand it. But there should be some evidence (in the form of testsuite results) that the supported ABIs are actually functional at the time they are added, and should not be code that's purely for unsupported ABIs (such code can be added later as and when support for those ABIs is added). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com