* Andrea Bolognani: > Wouldn't changing -mabi effectively make the result a new Fedora > architecture? IIUC, binaries built with -mabi=lp64d wouldn't be able > to load libraries built with -mabi=lp64dv and vice versa. > > If that's correct, then we can't simply have a single "riscv64" > architecture: instead, we need to call what we have today > riscv64_lp64d, and be ready for riscv64_lp64dv as well as whatever > comes next.
Right. > It would be somewhat similar to existing architectures that can be > used in both Little-Endian (ppc64le) and Big-Endian (ppc64) modes. With different paths, it would be more like i686 and x86_64. That is, you can build and run software for both variants from the same operating system image. That's not the case for ppc64 and ppc64le. > This is quite different from just bumping the ISA baseline, where > existing binaries and libraries are still usable in the new > environment. Right, changing the vector calling convention may change the size of jmp_buf, and then you have a new ABI even if use of the vector features is optional. Thanks, Florian -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
