Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Le 06/06/2020 à 01:54, Will Springer a écrit : On Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:17:24 PM PDT Will Springer wrote: On Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:37:43 AM PDT Christophe Leroy wrote: There is a series at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=173231 to switch powerpc to the Ge

Re: [musl] ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 10:29:57AM +, Will Springer wrote: > On Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:56:47 PM PDT you wrote: > > On Friday, May 29, 2020 12:24:27 PM PDT Rich Felker wrote: > > > The argument passing for pread/pwrite is historically a mess and > > > differs between archs. musl has a dedicate

Re: [musl] ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:56:47 PM PDT you wrote: > On Friday, May 29, 2020 12:24:27 PM PDT Rich Felker wrote: > > The argument passing for pread/pwrite is historically a mess and > > differs between archs. musl has a dedicated macro that archs can > > define to override it. But it looks like it

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, at 02:12, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 11:59:32PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 19:27, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > Third party precompiled stuff doesn't really need to concern us, since > > > > none really exists. > > > >

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 11:59:32PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 19:27, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > Third party precompiled stuff doesn't really need to concern us, since > > > none really exists. > > > > ... Yet. And if you claim you support ELFv2, not mentioning the

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:17:24 PM PDT Will Springer wrote: > On Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:37:43 AM PDT Christophe Leroy wrote: > > There is a series at > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=173231 > > to switch powerpc to the Generic C VDSO. > > > > Can you try and s

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hi! On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 01:50:46PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:27:02PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > I'm also not really all that convinced that vectors make a huge > > > difference in non-specialized code (autovectorization still has a way to > > > go) >

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 19:27, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:18:18AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 01:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > The thing is, I've yet to see in which way the ELFv2 ABI *actually* > > > > requires VSX - I don't think co

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:27:02PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:18:18AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 01:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > The thing is, I've yet to see in which way the ELFv2 ABI *actually* > > > > requires VSX - I don

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:18:18AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 01:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > The thing is, I've yet to see in which way the ELFv2 ABI *actually* > > > requires VSX - I don't think compiling for 970 introduces any actual > > > differences. There w

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 06:06:39PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 11:55:11PM +0200, Phil Blundell wrote: > > 1a. Define your own subset of ELFv2 which is interworkable with the full > > ABI at the function call interface but doesn't make all the same > > guarantees abo

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:39:30PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > Is there *any* way I can take that would make upstreams of all parts > of the toolchain happy? I explicitly don't want to go back to ELFv1. > While at it, I'd like to transition to ld64 long double format, to > match musl and impro

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 01:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 11:43:53PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > The thing is, I've yet to see in which way the ELFv2 ABI *actually* > > requires VSX - I don't think compiling for 970 introduces any actual > > differences. Ther

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hi! On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:26:22AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > Either way I'll think about it some more and possibly prepare an RFC port. > I'm definitely willing to put in the work and later maintenance effort if > that's what it takes to make it happen. Yeah, you'll need to convince all

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hi! On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:08:02PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > The ELFv2 document specifies things like passing of quadruple precision > > floats. Indeed, VSX is needed there, but that's not a concern if you > > *don't* use quadruple precision floats. > > My understanding is that the reg

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hi! On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 11:43:53PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > The thing is, I've yet to see in which way the ELFv2 ABI *actually* requires > VSX - I don't think compiling for 970 introduces any actual differences. > There will be omissions, yes - but then the more accurate thing would be

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hi! On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 11:55:11PM +0200, Phil Blundell wrote: > 1a. Define your own subset of ELFv2 which is interworkable with the full > ABI at the function call interface but doesn't make all the same > guarantees about binary compatibility. That would mean that a binary > built with y

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 00:08, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > The ELFv2 document specifies things like passing of quadruple precision > > floats. Indeed, VSX is needed there, but that's not a concern if you > > *don't* use quadruple precision floats. > > My

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, 4 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > The ELFv2 document specifies things like passing of quadruple precision > floats. Indeed, VSX is needed there, but that's not a concern if you > *don't* use quadruple precision floats. My understanding is that the registers used for argument passing ar

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, at 23:55, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:39:30PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > Is there *any* way I can take that would make upstreams of all parts > > of the toolchain happy? I explicitly don't want to go back to ELFv1. > > While at it, I'd like to trans

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, at 23:10, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:39:30PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, at 19:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > It is the ABI. If you think it should be different, make your own ABI, > > > don't pretend the exist

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hi! On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:39:30PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, at 19:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > It is the ABI. If you think it should be different, make your own ABI, > > don't pretend the existing ABI is different than what it is. Thank you. > > Well then - in

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:46 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:33:12PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:18:44PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:12:32PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, at 19:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:18:44PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:12:32PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > > well, ppc64le already cannot b

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 03:00:51PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:46 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:33:12PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:18:44PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:12:3

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:33:12PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:18:44PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:12:32PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > > well, ppc64le alrea

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:18:44PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:12:32PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > well, ppc64le already cannot be run on those, as far as I know (I > > > don't think it's possib

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:27:24PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote: > Naturally on POWER the first cpu that has LE support is POWER8 so you > can count on all other POWER8 features to be present. This is not true. The oldest CPU the ELFv2 ABI (and so, powerpc64le-linux) supports is POWER8, but most

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:12:32PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > well, ppc64le already cannot be run on those, as far as I know (I > > don't think it's possible to build ppc64le userland without VSX in > > any configuration) >

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > well, ppc64le already cannot be run on those, as far as I know (I don't think > it's possible to build ppc64le userland without VSX in any configuration) VSX is required by the ELFv2 ABI: """ Specifically, to use this ABI and ABI-c

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:50:32PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > The supported glibc ABIs are listed at > > > . > > > > powerpcle-linux already does work somewhat, and that should also he > > worth so

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:40:39PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 17:27, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 16:23, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:40:23PM +000

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 17:27, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 16:23, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:40:23PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: >

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 16:23, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:40:23PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > > > > > not be limited to being just userspace under ppc64le

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 16:23, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:40:23PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > > > not be limited to being just userspace under ppc64le, but should be > > > runnable on a native kernel as well, which should

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 15:40, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > not be limited to being just userspace under ppc64le, but should be > > runnable on a native kernel as well, which should not be limited to any > > particular baseline other than just PowerPC. >

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:40:23PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > not be limited to being just userspace under ppc64le, but should be > > runnable on a native kernel as well, which should not be limited to any > > particular baseline other than just P

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > The supported glibc ABIs are listed at > > . > > powerpcle-linux already does work somewhat, and that should also he > worth something, official or not ;-) > > (It has worked for very many years already

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > not be limited to being just userspace under ppc64le, but should be > runnable on a native kernel as well, which should not be limited to any > particular baseline other than just PowerPC. This is a fairly unusual approach to bringing up a new ABI. Si

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 04:36, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:12:26AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 03:58, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > I recommend new ports that cannot jump to IEEE QP float directly to use > > > long double == double for the ti

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:12:26AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 03:58, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > I recommend new ports that cannot jump to IEEE QP float directly to use > > long double == double for the time being, avoiding the extra > > complications that IBM double do

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 04:12, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 11:45:51PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > Are you sure this would be a new port? Glibc already works in this > > > combination, as it seems to me it'd be best if it

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 11:45:51PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > Are you sure this would be a new port? Glibc already works in this > > combination, as it seems to me it'd be best if it was just a variant of > > the existing 32-bit PowerPC port, sharing

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 03:58, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:26:37AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, at 23:28, Joseph Myers wrote: > > Are you sure this would be a new port? Glibc already works in this > > combination, as it seems to me it'd be best if

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:58 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:26:37AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, at 23:28, Joseph Myers wrote: > > Are you sure this would be a new port? Glibc already works in this > > combination, as it seems to me it'd be best

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 03:42, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 09:28:25PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2020, Will Springer via Binutils wrote: > > > > > Hey all, a couple of us over in #talos-workstation on freenode have been > > > working on an

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:26:37AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, at 23:28, Joseph Myers wrote: > Are you sure this would be a new port? Glibc already works in this > combination, as it seems to me it'd be best if it was just a variant of the > existing 32-bit PowerPC port, sh

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hi Joseph, On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 09:28:25PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2020, Will Springer via Binutils wrote: > > > Hey all, a couple of us over in #talos-workstation on freenode have been > > working on an effort to bring up a Linux PowerPC userland that runs in > > 32-bit >

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 12:29:56AM +0200, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2020, at 22:42, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > There was just an assumption that LE == powerpc64le in libgo, spotted by > > > q66 (daniel@ on the CC). I just pushed the patch to [1]. > > > > Please send GCC patches

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 01:55, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > The minimum supported architecture for powerpc64le (POWER8) has VSX. My > > understanding was that the suggestion was for 32-bit userspace to run > > under powerpc64le kernels running on POWER8 or

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 01:45, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > > > Are you sure this would be a new port? Glibc already works in this > > combination, as it seems to me it'd be best if it was just a variant of > > the existing 32-bit PowerPC port, sharing most co

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Joseph Myers wrote: > The minimum supported architecture for powerpc64le (POWER8) has VSX. My > understanding was that the suggestion was for 32-bit userspace to run > under powerpc64le kernels running on POWER8 or later, meaning that such a > 32-bit LE port, and any ABI de

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > Are you sure this would be a new port? Glibc already works in this > combination, as it seems to me it'd be best if it was just a variant of > the existing 32-bit PowerPC port, sharing most conventions besides > endianness with the BE port. The suppor

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, at 23:28, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2020, Will Springer via Binutils wrote: > > > Hey all, a couple of us over in #talos-workstation on freenode have been > > working on an effort to bring up a Linux PowerPC userland that runs in > > 32-bit > > little-endian mode,

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 09:28:25PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2020, Will Springer via Binutils wrote: > > > Hey all, a couple of us over in #talos-workstation on freenode have been > > working on an effort to bring up a Linux PowerPC userland that runs in > > 32-bit > > little-en

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Fri, 29 May 2020, Will Springer via Binutils wrote: > Hey all, a couple of us over in #talos-workstation on freenode have been > working on an effort to bring up a Linux PowerPC userland that runs in 32-bit > little-endian mode, aka ppcle. As far as we can tell, no ABI has ever been > designate

Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Sun, May 31, 2020, at 22:42, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 12:57:12AM +, Will Springer wrote: > > On Saturday, May 30, 2020 12:22:12 PM PDT Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > The original sysv PowerPC supplement > > > http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pd

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 12:57:12AM +, Will Springer wrote: > On Saturday, May 30, 2020 12:22:12 PM PDT Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > The original sysv PowerPC supplement > > http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf > > supports LE as well, and most powerpcle ports use that. But

Re: [musl] ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Friday, May 29, 2020 12:24:27 PM PDT Rich Felker wrote: > The argument passing for pread/pwrite is historically a mess and > differs between archs. musl has a dedicated macro that archs can > define to override it. But it looks like it should match regardless of > BE vs LE, and musl already defi

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Saturday, May 30, 2020 12:22:12 PM PDT Segher Boessenkool wrote: > The original sysv PowerPC supplement > http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf > supports LE as well, and most powerpcle ports use that. But, the > big-endian Linux ABI differs in quite a few places, and it of c

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:37:43 AM PDT Christophe Leroy wrote: > There is a series at > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=173231 to > switch powerpc to the Generic C VDSO. > > Can you try and see whether it fixes your issue ? > > Christophe Sure thing, I spotted th

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hi! On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:03:48PM +, Will Springer wrote: > Hey all, a couple of us over in #talos-workstation on freenode have been > working on an effort to bring up a Linux PowerPC userland that runs in 32-bit > little-endian mode, aka ppcle. As far as we can tell, no ABI has ever been

Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Le 29/05/2020 à 21:03, Will Springer a écrit : [...] Also worth noting is the one other outstanding bug, where the time-related syscalls in the 32-bit vDSO seem to return garbage. It doesn't look like an endian bug to me, and it doesn't affect standard syscalls (which is why if you run `dat

ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

Hey all, a couple of us over in #talos-workstation on freenode have been working on an effort to bring up a Linux PowerPC userland that runs in 32-bit little-endian mode, aka ppcle. As far as we can tell, no ABI has ever been designated for this (unless you count the patchset from a decade ago [1])

Re: [musl] ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:03:48PM +, Will Springer wrote: > The next problem concerns the ABI more directly. The failure mode was `file` > surfacing EINVAL from pread64 when invoked on an ELF; pread64 was passed a > garbage value for `pos`, which didn't appear to be caused by anything in > `f