On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote: > On 2016-05-23 11:09, YunQiang Su wrote: >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote: >> > control: merge 824985 824996 >> > thanks >> > >> > On 2016-05-22 14:37, YunQiang Su wrote: >> >> Package: src:glibc >> >> Version: 2.22-9 >> >> >> >> Hi, I am working add MIPS r6 support for base toolchains. >> >> This is the patch for glibc (2.22 only) >> >> >> >> I am also working on 2.23 also, and will submit soon. >> > >> > We'll apply the patch to the sid branch and merge it into 2.23. >> > >> > I have one global comment about it though. Do we need to keep multilib >> > with the 3 ABI? It makes MIPS toolchain painfully slow to build and >> > nowadays the same can be achieved with multiarch (or even with the >> > plain old chroots). >> > >> > The same way should we really add support for n32? We have more and more >> > issues to solve on 32-bit machines due to the limited address space, so >> > if the host supports 64-bit instructions, we should go to full 64 bits. >> > >> >> In fact I won't build them on Debian official build machines. >> The multilib and N32 will help me to build cross toolchains. >> >> As we talked in the last Debconf, we are planning for migrate to 64bit, >> while I still wish the patches for 32/n32/multilib still in the code base, >> so I can build cross toolchains or base system in private repo. > > The patch for adding so many architectures is big (mostly due to > multilib) and we'll have to maintain consistency for all > debian/sysdeps/mips*.mk when doing a change. I guess that's acceptable > though if we accept some of them will get broken over time.
My plan is to have a continuous cross toolchain for all of these architectures. So, I prefer we can keep them. As r6 shared the same method in gcc with r5-, if we remove the multilib support, we will have to make r6 different process with r5- in gcc. I think I can keep them sync. > > Now the real question is about multilib support for MIPS R6. Do we > really want to keep using multilib for them? This makes MIPS the slowest > architectures to build the toolchain, while nowadays one can build > cross toolchains without pre-existing multilib support. I don't think build time will be a big problem. > > Aurelien > > -- > Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B > aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- YunQiang Su
