From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
To: newlib@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] newlib: libm: workaround ar duplicate member behavior
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:56:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YhX2uWxbuz9XDP6I@calimero.vinschen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YhUatCDPRyC0lTGQ@vapier>
On Feb 22 12:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2022 12:34, Jon Turney wrote:
> > On 22/02/2022 11:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Feb 21 19:21, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> GNU ar has undocumented behavior where it doesn't dedupe its inputs if
> > >> they're all on the same command line, so we have to dedupe ourselves.
> > >> ---
> > >> v2
> > >> - use awk to dedupe the object list
> >
> > I think this could still at least use a comment about how the ordering
> > of the inputs relates to which duplicate object are dropped and which
> > are kept.
>
> i had updated the comment locally already and just hadn't posted it:
> ## GNU ar has undocumented behavior when specifying the same name multiple times
> ## in a single invocation, so we have to dedupe ourselves. The algorithm here:
> ## - Generates the set of unique objects based on the basename.
> ## - Favors objects later in the list (since machine objects come last).
> ## - Outputs object list in same order as input for reproducibility.
>
> > (I'm assuming cpu-specific ones are meant to be kept in preference to
> > generic routines, but how does this achieve that?)
> >
> > > This seems to work.
> > >
> > > However, what do we have to do in future to make sure the order is
> > > always correct?
>
> i've documented this in 3 places, so think it's fine.
>
> (1) libc/Makefile.inc & (2) libm/Makefile.inc both have:
> ## The order of includes is important for two reasons:
> ## * The integrated documentation (chapter ordering).
> ## * Object overridding -- machine dir must come last.
> ## Do not change the order without considering the doc impact.
>
> (3) in the heavily rewritten build documentation i sent out [1].
> it's pending review from folks, so hasn't been merged yet.
>
> > > And the heritic question: Wouldn't it be safer to keep the old
> > > per-subdir lib.a logic?
>
> i think this is a false dichotomy. the lib.a logic has the same problem,
> albeit it was never documented: if the order of SUBDIRS isn't maintained,
> then the machine overrides do not work correctly. if the order of the
> lib.a unpacking was not done correctly, then the machine overrides do not
> work correctly. the fact that it's been "stable for so long" isn't due
> to the code being written well (no offense), it's because it's been so
> dense & undocumented that no one has wanted to touch it with a 3m pole :P.
>
> > Considering the problem in the next larger context: why are we doing
> > this at all?
> >
> > Is this just so the generic fenv routines are chewed on as they contain
> > the doc markup? In which case it would be simpler to do that explicitly.
> >
> > If it's so that a cpu- specific fenv doesn't need to provide all the
> > objects, well, that could be done explicitly as well, I think?
>
> assuming you're asking about the machine-override logic specifically and
> not "why am i changing the build system at all", then the current newlib
> design supports more than fenv. fortunately, i believe i already wrote
> up all the docs you want :). please give it a look and see if i missed
> anything.
> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/newlib/2022/019275.html
> -mike
Ok, thanks, please push.
Corinna
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-23 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-12 20:34 [PATCH] newlib: libm: merge build up a directory Mike Frysinger
2022-02-16 8:50 ` [HEADSUP] " Corinna Vinschen
2022-02-16 9:40 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-02-16 10:48 ` Corinna Vinschen
2022-02-17 4:38 ` Mike Frysinger
2022-02-17 4:42 ` [PATCH v2] " Mike Frysinger
2022-02-17 12:08 ` Corinna Vinschen
2022-02-21 11:20 ` Corinna Vinschen
2022-02-21 18:00 ` Mike Frysinger
2022-02-21 18:04 ` Jon Turney
2022-02-21 18:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2022-02-21 19:12 ` Jon Turney
2022-02-21 19:24 ` Corinna Vinschen
2022-02-21 20:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2022-02-21 20:31 ` Mike Frysinger
2022-02-21 18:28 ` Mike Frysinger
2022-02-21 20:43 ` [PATCH] newlib: libm: workaround ar duplicate member behavior Mike Frysinger
2022-02-21 20:51 ` Joel Sherrill
2022-02-21 22:12 ` Mike Frysinger
2022-02-21 22:14 ` Joel Sherrill
2022-02-22 0:21 ` [PATCH v2] " Mike Frysinger
2022-02-22 11:31 ` Corinna Vinschen
2022-02-22 12:34 ` Jon Turney
2022-02-22 17:17 ` Mike Frysinger
2022-02-23 8:56 ` Corinna Vinschen [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YhX2uWxbuz9XDP6I@calimero.vinschen.de \
--to=vinschen@redhat.com \
--cc=newlib@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).