Bug#824985: glibc 2.22: add MIPS r6 support
On 2016-05-23 11:09, YunQiang Su wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> > control: merge 824985 824996
> > thanks
> >
> > On 2016-05-22 14:37, YunQiang Su wrote:
> >> Package: src:glibc
> >> Version: 2.22-9
> >>
> >> Hi, I am working add MIPS r6 support for base toolchains.
> >> This is the patch for glibc (2.22 only)
> >>
> >> I am also working on 2.23 also, and will submit soon.
> >
> > We'll apply the patch to the sid branch and merge it into 2.23.
> >
> > I have one global comment about it though. Do we need to keep multilib
> > with the 3 ABI? It makes MIPS toolchain painfully slow to build and
> > nowadays the same can be achieved with multiarch (or even with the
> > plain old chroots).
> >
> > The same way should we really add support for n32? We have more and more
> > issues to solve on 32-bit machines due to the limited address space, so
> > if the host supports 64-bit instructions, we should go to full 64 bits.
> >
>
> In fact I won't build them on Debian official build machines.
> The multilib and N32 will help me to build cross toolchains.
>
> As we talked in the last Debconf, we are planning for migrate to 64bit,
> while I still wish the patches for 32/n32/multilib still in the code base,
> so I can build cross toolchains or base system in private repo.
The patch for adding so many architectures is big (mostly due to
multilib) and we'll have to maintain consistency for all
debian/sysdeps/mips*.mk when doing a change. I guess that's acceptable
though if we accept some of them will get broken over time.
Now the real question is about multilib support for MIPS R6. Do we
really want to keep using multilib for them? This makes MIPS the slowest
architectures to build the toolchain, while nowadays one can build
cross toolchains without pre-existing multilib support.
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: