svn commit: r266553 - head/release/scripts

[Konstantin Belousov]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:35:27AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> On May 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:26:58AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> 
> >> Then we disagree on this point. However, the disagreement here is
> >> kinda foundational: to build a set of libraries or sys root, you have
> >> to have a MACHINE_ARCH to make it work. Even in our current system, we
> >> set MACHINE_ARCH to i386 or powerpc when building the 32-bit binaries
> >> (note: we don?t do this for mips). This means that if we do grow x32
> >> support, we?ll need to grow a MACHINE_ARCH for it. That?s my point:
> >> all ABIs have MACHINE_ARCH associated with them, and those are the
> >> names users are used to specifying, and are the ones that are the most
> >> natural for script writers to use. With nathan?s patches, we?re to the
> >> point where those are used, though there?s also the option of using
> >> the non-standard names if you want (e.g. amd64:32 instead of x32).
> >> 
> > 
> > I am not sure if this comment would add anything to the discussion,
> > but other build systems do not require MACHINE_ARCH.  In our terms,
> > other build systems are happy to build:
> > i386 binary when MACHINE is amd64 and CFLAGS contains -m32;
> > x32 binary when MACHINE is amd64 and CFLAGS contains -mx32.
> > 
> > For HEAD and stable/10 we finally reached the point where -m32 works,
> > on amd64; it worked on powerpc64 from inception, AFAIU Nathan. At least
> > this is true for dependencies limited to the base system, and not to the
> > ports (the later is since ports do not know about multiarch).
> > 
> > It is limitation of our build that we require MACHINE_ARCH to build
> > other natively supported ABI binary on the host. Ideally, the hacks that
> > treat lib32 build as the cross-compilation would go away eventually.
> 
> I doubt it. The MACHINE_ARCH is used to select which files to build.
Do I understand you right that the comment references e.g. a selection
of arch-specific subdir in lib/libc or libexec/rtld-elf for inclusion
into the build ? If yes, I cannot disagree with the statement.

My note was about our build system which currently requires
full-fledged cross-build to even create i386 binary on amd64 vs. other
builds which consider this as a (often minor) variations of the host
target. Sure, some variances must be allowed, e.g. to select proper .S
file for the ABI, but we do not need cross-build to get i386 on amd64.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20140528/6c479eef/attachment.sig>