From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 10 23:31:25 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D2447E; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:31:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew@fubar.geek.nz) Received: from nibbler.fubar.geek.nz (nibbler.fubar.geek.nz [199.48.134.198]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D212697; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:31:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bender.Home (97e5e46b.skybroadband.com [151.229.228.107]) by nibbler.fubar.geek.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B25B5DFFE; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:31:17 +0100 From: Andrew Turner To: Warner Losh Subject: Re: armv6eb broken? Message-ID: <20130911003117.0f9ea77c@bender.Home> In-Reply-To: References: <522E47B1.2070904@delphij.net> <20130910093724.2be6332c@bender.Home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Chisnall , "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" , d@delphij.net X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:31:25 -0000 On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:34:17 -0600 Warner Losh wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2013, at 2:37 AM, Andrew Turner wrote: > > > On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:12:01 -0700 > > Xin Li wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA512 > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> It seems that 'make tinderbox' is still broken for armv6eb, citing > >> missing __sync_fetch_and_add_4 referenced in librt.so. I have no > >> idea on how to fix this though :-/ > > > > My opinion is we should remove the armv6eb target. It was > > unsupported by llvm & clang the last time I looked, and, as far as > > I can tell, we have no boards that use it. > > Then what's triggering it? Just the tinderbox? If it is just the > tinderbox, let's remove it from there, but keep it in the rest of the > tree, since there's some tricky bits I did to make it compile in the > first place... Just because clang/llvm don't support it doesn't mean > we should actively remove the support from the rest of the system. > External tool chains do. My plan was to commit something like [1]. It removes armv6eb from tinderbox and from being able to be built, but allows it to be brought back in the unlikely event someone wishes to support it. I have yet to find anyone who uses big-endian on ARMv6 and later. Even on Linux, where they have the kernel code to support it, there were no configs with it enabled the last time I looked. Andrew [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~andrew/rm_armv6eb.diff