From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu Aug 13 06:44:03 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16299A0C01 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:44:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rdivacky@vlakno.cz) Received: from vlakno.cz (mail.vlakno.cz [91.217.96.224]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2447AA7D; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:44:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rdivacky@vlakno.cz) Received: by vlakno.cz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id D9D6B1E20C82; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:42:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=vlakno.cz; s=mail; t=1439448147; bh=aVREc77S+btWKpV00BQYHPnMAIV2WaP/xoS3UXKl/Xo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=R6HxHxVtNK57bVjwxJaULJJygBJklIsWyqInIaa5bz95MHsSzX01zly7E6gQPLjdv dyRrayRNNvAWkIS0jDdRhXk7pgqonHP3zR2BYkCNHwF+iNTzBd/QQs5X/d5vJZhupj Abo9rsjRXqEAfRYdPnuYt4e5ReM8WJ5HZLKG7Eo0= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:42:27 +0200 From: Roman Divacky To: Bill Sorenson Cc: John Baldwin , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sparc64 support Message-ID: <20150813064227.GA85863@vlakno.cz> References: <7311511.ISQt3RZVgq@ralph.baldwin.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:24:58 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:44:04 -0000 Fwiw, there's been some fixes to the sparc64 backend in clang37, so you might want to spend some more idle sparc cycles to build and test that. Anyway, marius@ did an analysis of the sparc64 support in llvm last december and reported a number of issues. I don't think those issues have been fixed. If you want to try/analyse/fix those bugs you're more than welcome. Roman On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 06:46:01PM -0500, Bill Sorenson wrote: > I just spent a day building clang36 from ports on one of my idle sparc > machines, and it builds a working ubench binary. I'm going to see if I can > build some ports with it but thus far the latest clang seems at least > superficially functional on sparc. I know when I tired many moons ago, > clang built binaries would instantly dump. > > -Bill Sorenson > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:53 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 02:10:34 PM Bill Sorenson wrote: > > > I'm one of probably a few users of FreeBSD and OpenBSD on multiple > > > platforms left and I thought I'd share some of my experience with BSD on > > > some of the lesser used platforms. > > > > Realistically, the major potential bump in the road for sparc64 is the > > toolchain. GCC 4.2.1 is getting really long in the tooth and as a > > Project we want to drop it as our system compiler. I can't tell you > > when that will happen, but it will eventually. That means that all of > > our supported platforms will either have to work with clang, or they will > > need to use an external GCC toolchain (of more recent vintage). Ensuring > > that one of these routes work for sparc64 will make it much easier for > > sparc64 to stay in the tree without inhibiting other work. > > > > My understanding is that the most recent clang in HEAD can at least build > > and install on sparc64, but that programs built with it might segfault, > > etc. If you are up for debugging those issues then that is one approach. > > I do think that clang works on Linux/sparc64, so that these should be > > FreeBSD bugs moreso than clang/llvm bugs (but I can't promise that). > > > > In theory we have bits in our build system to use an external toolchain > > for building a system. I haven't worked with them but I have seen others > > talk about them (e.g. imp@ and bapt@). Getting the recipe down for how > > to do it and testing that the system works with recent versions of > > GCC is what is missing there I think (so that there are instructions of > > 'install port foo', 'stick this in /etc/make.conf', or 'put this on the > > command line to buildworld', etc.). Of course, testing that the resulting > > binaries also work correctly would also be good. :) > > > > -- > > John Baldwin > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"