From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, riscv@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] How to structure our RISC-V support
Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 18:05:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <12597472.qUNvkh4Gvn@pinacolada> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJTdOL0xMveVlhxC@ofant>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1725 bytes --]
> > 1) We stop caring about anything except rv64gc/lp64d.
> > People can still bootstrap other stuff with crossdev etc, but the
> > Gentoo tree and the riscv keyword reflect that things work with
> > above -mabi and -march settings.
>
> fine by me, for current software/upstream state, it's probably the
> most practical way to only support lp64d, this will significantly
> ease our life .. besides, it's relatively easy if people want to
> support more (lp64/lp32..) later
>
++
> > 2) We drop the multilib paths and use "normal" lib64, with
> > additional "safety symlinks" (/usr)/lib64/lp64d -> .
> > This is what SuSE and (I think) Fedora already does. The symlink
> > should be there since "lib64" is NOT an official fallback coded
> > into gcc/glibc/binutils; the only fallback present is "lib" ...
> can we use different scheme for non-multilib vs multilib?
> 1) non-multilibe: just use "normal" lib64, keep align with other
> ARCHs (amd64)?
++
> 2) multilib: just stick to current two level lib path
We can try that but it doesn't solve any of our problems (and we'd
have to keep carrying the two-level dir patches).
(I've already decided some time ago that supporting real multilib
stages is too much effort for insufficient gain and stopped publishing
them. Until recently I still built them; since glibc-2.33 they broke
and while I know how to fix things I haven't had time to do it yet.)
So if we keep the multilib scheme around, then IMHO only as internal
workaround until we/upstream/... have figured out a better directory
scheme.
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-07 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-06 20:01 [gentoo-dev] How to structure our RISC-V support Andreas K. Huettel
2021-05-06 20:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2021-05-06 20:16 ` [gentoo-dev] " Palmer Dabbelt
2021-05-06 20:16 ` [gentoo-dev] " Michał Górny
2021-05-06 20:30 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2021-05-06 20:34 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2021-05-07 16:11 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2021-05-07 6:15 ` Yixun Lan
2021-05-07 7:38 ` Michał Górny
2021-05-07 16:08 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2021-05-07 6:24 ` Yixun Lan
2021-05-07 16:05 ` Andreas K. Huettel [this message]
2021-05-08 12:42 ` [gentoo-dev] How to structure our RISC-V support -- Summary Andreas K. Huettel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=12597472.qUNvkh4Gvn@pinacolada \
--to=dilfridge@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=riscv@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox