Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 22:48:28 -0700 From: "Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)" <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Marius Strobl <marius@freebsd.org> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@Wilcox-Tech.com>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: future of sparc64 (was: Making C++11 a hard requirement for FreeBSD) Message-ID: <353165E9-561A-4A4E-9906-3471928C770B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CB71FA85-BBE1-4633-990C-4AB10A91D071@gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfq5=KRp4NYKsc15gyS9C7CxrBFxcKQLPwnb_0oPb15vJw@mail.gmail.com> <20171005234149.GE8557@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <59D6CA6C.1040502@Wilcox-Tech.com> <20171007174124.GA20810@lonesome.com> <20171010211428.GA51868@alchemy.franken.de> <CB71FA85-BBE1-4633-990C-4AB10A91D071@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] > On Oct 22, 2017, at 22:47, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Oct 10, 2017, at 14:14, Marius Strobl <marius@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:41:24PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >>> >>> All gccs > 4.9 fail to build. Looking at the logs AFAICT the failure >>> is a floating-point exception as soon as the first built binary is run >>> during the internal testing. >> >> The most plausible cause for that is executables and/or dynamic libraries >> not installing the user trap handlers as specified by the libc 64 psABI, >> i. e. not call __sparc_utrap_setup(). Do the ports GCCs use their own CRT >> nowadays? Do they no longer link libc last? Please provide their linker >> invocation. Also, please provide the backtrace of a minimal program >> exhibiting that problem. > > An idea occurred to me (after having dealt with building things over, and over, and over, this weekend): since we can’t rely on the ABI on ^/head to be stable, why don’t we produce working dynamic/static toolchains on HEAD-1 in ports, then require them for the areas that can’t bootstrap (yet, or at all?) with clang? We’ve already done that with some of our code that’s been deorbited from base (like rsh, etc). I don’t see why making a toolchain based on a stable ABI for architectures that will migrate or will be killed off needs to be a huge undertaking (politically), and needs to hold us back from making progress using a compiler that implements an almost 7 year old C++ spec. … and yes, this can be interpreted as “I will do it as long as people don’t bikeshed me to death on the idea”. -Ngie [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE5bk3FaGcY5rvqmb79YOpJmkwhhUFAlntgqwACgkQ9YOpJmkw hhXJqg/8D0o4xyRPGevVzoN9XsJGlfC9ZBOrfOx6F9Q2N8yGWyn8IH/git4wHFej xw0sshT5ySbmVa0dHqikArzE4pCzAXfGMa3UoZFUT075FZJHOeYqsQsVnKOCWbEo Zj4xW0z2UGxBKG0CnfxoRpIgh3W4Ch8uxE2ZyFmYvuzTa6EQvmHxN0Kh6kPv+6D7 fcS/oVKie8fIjdga5jl/jaRWandq6Nefweo1BZ6yS/0P+KGdL7QU/Vtgat59ILlb rkYYcigagxLHJCY3NraBb/bFwvIwMTjfX5iloIOccjXzKxyZCfWi4aLL+cMvEaIO 6KXsKlRxPnFCqj6edlf5A7lr/Hz8E3+luH2U72FmBgYLf4HD/cXrxelHsxJiSP4R HLXQrI7zuNJCGgUwIbIS9ThGejq/oYGDtao403KPSfiO7z0/k0zY5wvtKtwW8jIi 9GQANY10H5+yFwIUpdRCaPEYKCVjTp1nISrW0w2ZBrQY4lXsvuZ9Ll6kRjB8LsI1 S4EJDjOlFNdoDYwvwnJGShl69pzjAffO8kStInJATP/d4Qz34R5oJubo+LzKRjAG TFcWJrPiQwtfzDpricjWK0i1mdqGOc6JlJ4o/9yjUSywPeqn8zaQn/7/n7123ieH 5xTGcBbxpwJhvVqv9mV02zd9znhDrDNmWj3vgcFTvx1kniy3X5Y= =MoDd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?353165E9-561A-4A4E-9906-3471928C770B>