Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 13:53:28 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Tijl Coosemans <tijl@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r266553 - head/release/scripts Message-ID: <E694D0DC-C9BE-4C95-A4E5-B73F36DB9963@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20140528154728.GB3991@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20140527001811.3e9d3e8d@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <05D1A11D-5985-42EA-84AD-209A8B51D391@bsdimp.com> <20140527093633.0a922e13@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <85FABD2B-81BB-4E1A-B61E-4216A144A9DB@bsdimp.com> <20140527214038.17d00369@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <13EB325C-3882-46AA-9B17-3BF19997C978@bsdimp.com> <20140528125027.6d0cc4fb@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <5E038619-5921-4B7A-A4EE-D1E83614934B@bsdimp.com> <20140528152820.GA3991@kib.kiev.ua> <D5376A56-2CB2-4CFD-BBC6-0E97902D880E@bsdimp.com> <20140528154728.GB3991@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_1E75C19A-0256-4135-A188-9FA601093413 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On May 28, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> = wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:35:27AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> On May 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Konstantin Belousov = <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: >>=20 >>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:26:58AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Then we disagree on this point. However, the disagreement here is >>>> kinda foundational: to build a set of libraries or sys root, you = have >>>> to have a MACHINE_ARCH to make it work. Even in our current system, = we >>>> set MACHINE_ARCH to i386 or powerpc when building the 32-bit = binaries >>>> (note: we don?t do this for mips). This means that if we do grow = x32 >>>> support, we?ll need to grow a MACHINE_ARCH for it. That?s my point: >>>> all ABIs have MACHINE_ARCH associated with them, and those are the >>>> names users are used to specifying, and are the ones that are the = most >>>> natural for script writers to use. With nathan?s patches, we?re to = the >>>> point where those are used, though there?s also the option of using >>>> the non-standard names if you want (e.g. amd64:32 instead of x32). >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I am not sure if this comment would add anything to the discussion, >>> but other build systems do not require MACHINE_ARCH. In our terms, >>> other build systems are happy to build: >>> i386 binary when MACHINE is amd64 and CFLAGS contains -m32; >>> x32 binary when MACHINE is amd64 and CFLAGS contains -mx32. >>>=20 >>> For HEAD and stable/10 we finally reached the point where -m32 = works, >>> on amd64; it worked on powerpc64 from inception, AFAIU Nathan. At = least >>> this is true for dependencies limited to the base system, and not to = the >>> ports (the later is since ports do not know about multiarch). >>>=20 >>> It is limitation of our build that we require MACHINE_ARCH to build >>> other natively supported ABI binary on the host. Ideally, the hacks = that >>> treat lib32 build as the cross-compilation would go away eventually. >>=20 >> I doubt it. The MACHINE_ARCH is used to select which files to build. > Do I understand you right that the comment references e.g. a selection > of arch-specific subdir in lib/libc or libexec/rtld-elf for inclusion > into the build ? If yes, I cannot disagree with the statement. As far as I can tell, that=92s the only reason we=92re doing it.. But = it is a critically important reason... > My note was about our build system which currently requires > full-fledged cross-build to even create i386 binary on amd64 vs. other > builds which consider this as a (often minor) variations of the host > target. Sure, some variances must be allowed, e.g. to select proper .S > file for the ABI, but we do not need cross-build to get i386 on amd64. lib32 uses -m32 and some other flags to achieve its ends. So it doesn=92t = create a full i386 compiler, etc. It just uses the amd64 one with = special flags/args. So I don=92t think it requires a full-fledged = cross-build environment, or I misunderstand what you mean by that = phrase. But none of this changes the fact that we have a unique MACHINE_ARCH = value per ABI. Warner --Apple-Mail=_1E75C19A-0256-4135-A188-9FA601093413 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJThj64AAoJEGwc0Sh9sBEApb0P/1+mgH0iiabCS0q0cB0BD+2z 6h4loQ5ag61mpykbnPDQU7eHJ37Po4uQ2ZNTV5vuQxTK0bMWftPv5JJyt9Y38Otv LNwM7zm71paooQwB+GK0+1gMX3bruOaRQjdlefmBS1/cYa9dlxaiW7Sr0ILFoOBk QA5dBgafpppQb+6La5W5BU1mLFoZR4NeAJ19RJQTo0PE7vbIMT3h7r5vCVpLUFm1 JUdMmEhf696lgrulMz6XkYX0PamMsQgDuMNuJphKrw3iyMgMgvugcJfUi1Z/6tKg ffUyqBa0eiea909pBGHv4bUAeU2Px/YntDOxGa46S9vvoiyWXWkGXNOFaiQaUC8C gVnB/XU5VI1rc1DB7c8mUloILOJrydVQbLgn5CBMlE5Fsc1yY9T6hwoKg+cKH/lO F92caf7HO84SlllB71cL2iNi/k1Hj7ZH0a7IkbqmCOVKx4liAuTb/GMzH2H2Rsiy VK4Y/NImGhZMp7AH++lafvjdu/IB5bc0wlHxpELI3811YICPbZjiufYzvcg+khOx xY4zvXCKikR52IbZXNKpVSkMwwccUZobozC5paoa/QZQbpvjLjZeOohkwmTTI0T9 9GD+qwe1bWGUu64K8G3Q2fDFbXo6n4JMrKoTajn87FhYt8AfreFTA+k54NGE5Aat 3+9QZs1NkD3ALrIYF6IN =6z+u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1E75C19A-0256-4135-A188-9FA601093413--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E694D0DC-C9BE-4C95-A4E5-B73F36DB9963>