cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.cpu.mk

David O'Brien obrien at freebsd.org
Sat Jul 22 00:25:46 UTC 2006


On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 08:14:53AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20060721125118.GA6326 at dragon.NUXI.org>
>             "David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
> : On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 05:39:27PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > In message: <44C012D1.2050905 at cs.rice.edu>
> : >             Alan Cox <alc at cs.rice.edu> writes:
> : > : Warner Losh wrote:
> : > : >  Add ARM optimization pointer for gcc flags.
> : > : I'm curious.  Is there an ETA for a working arm tool-chain in CVS HEAD?
> : > 
> : > As soon as I can work out with David how he wants me to commit it.  Or
> : > until I get tired of waiting and make any mistakes I make his problem
> : > as punishment for not getting back to me in a timely manner.
> : 
> : I'm working on getting it in upstream first - what was decided in the
> : past as the proper path to grow new architectures in FreeBSD.  Otherwise
> : we can go down the same path we did in the past where our toolchain
> : diverged very far from the GNU sources and we were left on own
> : maintaining them.  Note that from what I've seen none of the anxious ARM
> : kernel developers have spent one once of time on this issue.
> 
> I'm going to call bullshit on this.

Lovely.
 
> I've been trying for over six months to work with you to get these
> changes into the tree and fed upstream.

You've been trying to force them into the tree without really accepting
any other path than the one you want, and in a short timeline.

> I'm tired of you blowing me off.

I've asked you for the resources I need, and you've been blowing me off
since December 7th, 2005 until June 19th when you pointed me to an
obtainable platform.  Followed by Sam's different offer June 20th.

> I am deeply offended that you accuse me of doing nothing when
> I've been repeatedly approaching you over the past year trying to get
> things into the tree.  I send you mail proposing things to make this
> happen, and you don't get back with me about the proposals.
> 
> You've never told me that you were working to get these changes
> upstream.

I've mentioned this to you, but I won't get into an argument what you
[mis]understood.  he-said-she-said...  Getting things upstream has been
the driving force in my strong interest in getting an ARM board or
working simulator.

> I'd be happy to help with this process if you'd only tell
> me what to do.  Who should I send email to with the patches?  What
> paperwork needs to be filled out?  What can I do to help ensure that
> the changes are fed upstream.

The same things one need to get changes into any upstream package.  The
path that we, The FreeBSD Project, has is that for toolchain things it
needs to be upstream and then we do an import.  Often this will be thru
(and require) a toolchain upgrade.  It is reasonable now, that we can get
the ARM (and other processor support I can get HW/emulator for) into FSF
GCC 4 and Binutils 2.17.1 and into FreeBSD thru upgrades to those
versions.

> Finally, you ignored my proposal that we import on the vendor branch
> the changes we have today, understanding that when gcc 4 comes you are
> under 0 obligation to do anything with them.  Since they would be on
> the vendor branch, it wouldn't interfere with your gcc 4 work.  It
> would allow us to MFC the changes.

This destroys the notion of a "vendor branch".  Putting changes into a
vendor branch that will never be part of the vendor code goes against the
purpose of the vendor branch and what it represents.

I've been working on a forming a response to your proposal that would be
able to appease both of us.  I am open to a phone call from you, but only
after you've calmed down and can discuss things agreeably.  If you recall
I tried to setup a meeting with you at USENIX ATC.  And I've tried to
catch you on IRC several times.

> : I'd like to ask when we'll get ARM resources in the FreeBSD.org cluster
> : so committers can have access to ARM - I don't.  So it is hard to test
> : anything.  Until a month ago no one would agree on a reference platform
> : so toolchain work could be tested vs.  spending all my time trying to get
> : something working that no one else had.  I am still waiting to get the
> : ARM board I purchased in my hands and working.
> 
> We've tested these patches.  They work.  Why must you be so insistant
> on a proceedure that makes it so hard to get things done.

As I wrote to you before, I will not commit anything to GCC/Binutils/GDB
that I have not (and cannot) test myself.  Would you accept a large patch
from me and commit it to the FreeBSD kernel without you being able to
build and test it?  I dare say you wouldn't.

> There will be times that the cluster doesn't have the resources needed,
> and you'll have to take it on faith that another architecture works.

Then The FreeBSD Project should take up a discussion of what it means for
an architecture or platform to officially be part of what the project
produces with this constraint.  The "Support for Multiple Architectures"
document that was a consensus of the committer community.  You can claim
it is out of date, but then the committer community should have a chance
to discuss this issue as a whole.

> : Alan I'm curious, for you what is the rush?
> 
> 6.2.  I've told you this before.  We want to make a big splash with the
> emebedded arm stuff, and I really want to get things in before then.
> 
> I'm extremely frustrated on this and this current situation is intolerable.

I feel the same.  You're going against how we've supported new
architectures in the past, and being unreasonable.

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)


More information about the cvs-all mailing list