[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: State of the PA-RISC/HPPA port (August 2013)

Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
> > So, what's the status of the Linux kernel for parisc?
> > 
> > Basically, I think all major outstanding kernel patches are now in the
> > upcoming kernel 3.11 tree, and the important ones will show up in the
> > stable kernel 3.10 series soon as well. Kernel 3.9 should be OK as well,
> > but some patches might be missing.
> > 
> > With kernel 3.11 (and 3.10.5 or higher) I expect most instability issues
> > from the past to be gone.  There might still be minor issues with
> > userspace segfaults (due to cache issues), but they are rare....
> Thanks for all the work Helge!
> On the glibc front I don't have as good news. We shipped 2.18 without
> all of the hppa patches, but keep a patchset up to date, and I'm
> merging in some changes from Dave.
> The glibc testsuite results are really bad, but hopefully I'll poke at
> those over the coming year.
> I'm using gentoo, and taking patches form the gentoo people and
> feeding those upstream as they are reported (I still have a few to go
> through).

Thanks to all of you working on that.

I currently do not have problems with glibc, at least I don't see any (Gentoo, 
using their 2.14 version). What I see are problems in binutils, although 
AFAICT those are not really HPPA-specific. One easy test is to build a recent 
version of CMake: if you specify no compiler flags bootstrapping will work, as 
I inserted -Wl,--unique=.text.* into the LDFLAGS there. But if you pass -O2 if 
will not build (binutils 2.23.[12]). If you remove the linker flag it will not 
work without -O2. I can't build newer kernels for my C8000 with frame pointers 
as it will crash ld with a NULL deref somewhere, older kernels work (probably 

But otherwise my machine became pretty stable in the last time, that is really 
good ;)



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: