On May 28, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:35:27AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> On May 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:26:58AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >>>> >>>> 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). >>>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> 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. >> >> 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’s the only reason we’re 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’t create a full i386 compiler, etc. It just uses the amd64 one with special flags/args. So I don’t 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
