On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 12:29:56AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2020, at 22:42, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > There was just an assumption that LE == powerpc64le in libgo, spotted by > > > q66 (daniel@ on the CC). I just pushed the patch to [1]. > > > > Please send GCC patches to gcc-patches@ ? > > FWIW, that patch alone is not very useful, we'd need to otherwise patch libgo > to recognize a new GOARCH (as right now it's likely to just use 'ppc' which > is wrong).
Gotcha. > That said, we'll get back to you with any patches we have. One I can already > think of - we will need to update the dynamic linker name so that it uses > ld-musl-powerpcle.so instead of powerpc (musl needs to be updated the same > way by adding the subarch variable for the 'le' prefix). Thanks! That would be good progress. > > > > Almost no project that used 32-bit PowerPC in LE mode has sent patches > > > > to the upstreams. > > > > > > Right, but I have heard concerns from at least one person familiar with > > > the ppc kernel about breaking existing users of this arch-endianness > > > combo, if any. It seems likely that none of those use upstream, though ^^; > > > > So we don't care, because we *cannot* care. > > Well, that's the reason this thread was opened in the first place - to call > out to any potential users, and synchronize with upstreams on a single way > forward that all upstreams can agree on, since this effort requires changes > in various parts of the stack. We don't want to hog changes locally or > otherwise do any changes that would be in conflict with upstream projects, as > that would mean needlessly diverging, which only means trouble later on. Much appreciated! I don't actually foresee any huge problems -- just lots of hard work ;-) Segher
