Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:42 +0530 From: "C. Jayachandran" <c.jayachandran@gmail.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-mips@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Toolchain changes coming soon. (Octeon, n32, n64) Message-ID: <AANLkTimGkCVLfvpkiuZLkQKHxjaR9NxqojIEG4sx4WY_@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100602.090422.862433495782007974.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <AANLkTilYyTZRFvkly897pFgnISE9npT9BM1yuOiQr3rx@mail.gmail.com> <20100602.073644.695112013731480233.imp@bsdimp.com> <AANLkTiksE5HAN9gz_4FVRUYYtGWHG7jmLOWVSoLAC_U-@mail.gmail.com> <20100602.090422.862433495782007974.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:34 PM, M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > In message: <AANLkTiksE5HAN9gz_4FVRUYYtGWHG7jmLOWVSoLAC_U-@mail.gmail.com= > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"C. Jayachandran" <c.jayachandran@gmail.com> write= s: > : On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:06 PM, M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > : > In message: <AANLkTilYyTZRFvkly897pFgnISE9npT9BM1yuOiQr3rx@mail.gmail= .com> > : > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"C. Jayachandran" <c.jayachandran@gmail.com> w= rites: > : > : On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org>= wrote: > : > : > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 02:17, C. Jayachandran <c.jayachandran@gma= il.com> wrote: > : > : >> That clears it up, thanks. =A0Looking at the patch, most of the = changes > : > : >> seems to be in binutils, are these from a specific version of > : > : >> binutils? =A0I am asking because I'm not sure how the FreeBSD to= olchain > : > : >> is synchronized across architectures - are all architectures at = the > : > : >> same version of binutils, or can each architecture decide to upd= ate > : > : >> its part of the tool-chain. > : > : > > : > : > I pulled some files from a slightly more modern version of binuti= ls > : > : > from a Cavium SDK than ours and reduced differences to make the > : > : > relevant parts of code match the older binutils API we provide, w= hile > : > : > still providing the newer opcode interface and a couple of nearby > : > : > things. > : > : > > : > : >>> Is there specific functionality you need in GCC? > : > : >> > : > : >> Netlogic has some updates for GCC and binutils in its SDK. But t= hey > : > : >> are not critical, and we have not merged these into the FreeBSD.= =A0I > : > : >> was not sure if I can get these changes into FreeBSD directly. > : > : > > : > : > If Netlogic can GPLv2 their specific changes or reimplement them > : > : > relative to FreeBSD's toolchain, I think we would want to coordin= ate > : > : > to get them into the tree. =A0Our goal is generally to produce a > : > : > fully-working self-hosting system out of the box. =A0That may cha= nge at > : > : > some point, especially if Warner's work on supporting external > : > : > toolchains better pans out well, but I think for now it's a reaso= nable > : > : > goal. > : > : > : > : Stock binutils and GCC works fine for XLR (it is mips64 compliant),= so > : > : XLR is self-hosting with the current FreeBSD MIPS tool-chain. =A0Ou= r > : > : patch for GCC is for adding 'xlr' machine description and march/mtu= ne > : > : options. The binutils patch is for a few XLR specific instructions = for > : > : which we currently '.word' in assembly for. =A0So both of these are= not > : > : really needed. > : > : > : > : Also licensing should not be an issue here - =A0I'll have a go at t= his > : > : once the other toolchain changes are in. > : > : > : > : > Note that my understanding is that David O'Brien is working on > : > : > bringing in the last GPLv2 binutils which will make the differenc= es > : > : > required for mips64r2 and Octeon substantially-smaller and I woul= d > : > : > hope for Netlogic processors as well. > : > > : > One thing that I'm told, but haven't verified, is that the binutils > : > from the XLR SDK breaks other mips platforms in subtle ways. =A0Based= on > : > this assertion, I think it would be prudent to carefully review and > : > test any proposed patches from that SDK. > : > : Our gcc and binutils patches are in the latest releases (IIRC - GCC > : went in about 4.4 and binutils patches are in 2.20), so it has gone > : thru some testing. > > On the one hand, that's cool! > > On the other, if they are in those releases, then it is GPLv3 code. > FSF requires ownership assignment. =A0How will there not be license > issues? We have these changes against the older (GPLv2) tool-chains in the SDK. I brought up the later versions just to clarify the testing and review status. JC.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimGkCVLfvpkiuZLkQKHxjaR9NxqojIEG4sx4WY_>