On Friday 29 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> >
> Thanks for the suggestion.
> Too bad we don't have in-house expert in klibc and musl port.
>
> Hi HPA,
> I knew you are the developer of klibc. Do you have any documentation to
> port a new architecture and also how to replace glibc with klibc i
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 21:53 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/28/2013 09:41 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> >
> > You don't need a new glibc port, you need a new klibc or musl port.
> >
> > http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2012/07/08/1
> >
> > Way less work than getting glibc working for your ba
On 03/28/2013 09:41 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> You don't need a new glibc port, you need a new klibc or musl port.
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2012/07/08/1
>
> Way less work than getting glibc working for your basic smoketest...
>
Good point. Average time to port klibc to a new a
On 03/28/2013 06:42:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 28 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 10:40 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > > We will working on generic ABI for kernel and Glibc. This might
take
> > > some time
On Thursday 28 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 10:40 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > > We will working on generic ABI for kernel and Glibc. This might take
> > > some times.
> >
> > Ok. Don't let that hold you up from submi
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 10:40 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 28 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > We will working on generic ABI for kernel and Glibc. This might take
> > some times.
>
> Ok. Don't let that hold you up from submitting the kernel patches
> for review though.
>
> Ar
On Thursday 28 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> We will working on generic ABI for kernel and Glibc. This might take
> some times.
Ok. Don't let that hold you up from submitting the kernel patches
for review though.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 07:44 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Yes, absolutely. What a couple of the previous architectures have done is
> to keep out of tree patches for their old ABI for a while, and to submit
> only code that follows the generic ABI upstream. Usually it doesn't take
> long for users
On Thursday 28 March 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/27/2013 08:09 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > The question is, is it a requirement for new arch to support generic
> > syscall ABI when upstreaming? Can we upstream a non-generic syscall ABI
> > first and migrate to generic syscall ABI in future
On 03/27/2013 08:09 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> Need advise regarding the generic syscall ABI support.
>
> We are planning to upstream our Nios II kernel (arch/nios2) to mainline.
> But it doesn't support generic syscall ABI yet (It requires an updated
> Glibc port as well).
Need advise regarding the generic syscall ABI support.
We are planning to upstream our Nios II kernel (arch/nios2) to mainline.
But it doesn't support generic syscall ABI yet (It requires an updated
Glibc port as well).
The question is, is it a requirement for new arch to support ge
11 matches
Mail list logo
