NetBSD-Bugs archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: port-arm/55897: A mess with complex arithmetics in earmv7hf



On 11/06/2021 02:45, Rin Okuyama wrote:
The following reply was made to PR port-arm/55897; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Rin Okuyama <rokuyama.rk%gmail.com@localhost>
To: "gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost" <gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Cc:
Subject: Re: port-arm/55897: A mess with complex arithmetics in earmv7hf
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:43:04 +0900

  This problem, i.e., ABI mismatch for floating-point runtime routines for
  hard-float arm, has been fixed by upstream by,

  (1) providing floating-point runtime routines with correct calling
       conventions, as well as,
  (2) providing EABI runtime routines as is, at the same time.

  The patch provided by submitter (adding -U__ARM_EABI__) only does (1).
  So, the correct fix should be importing upstream fixes.

  Although LLVM project itself has moved to MIT license, compiler_rt is
  provided by dual licenses of BSD and MIT:

  https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/compiler-rt/LICENSE.TXT

  Therefore, there's no problem to merge upstream fixes into
  sys/external/bsd.

  The patches below are for sys/external/bsd/compiler_rt/dist, for (1) and
  (2) above, and necessary style fixes:

  http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/port-arm_55897/compiler_rt.patch0
  http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/port-arm_55897/compiler_rt.patch1
  http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/port-arm_55897/compiler_rt.patch2
  http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/port-arm_55897/compiler_rt.patch3
  http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/port-arm_55897/compiler_rt.patch4
  http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/port-arm_55897/compiler_rt.patch5

  Also, this patch is glue for our tree:

  http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/port-arm_55897/our_tree.patch

  I've confirmed that

  (a) test case provided by submitter no longer fails,
  (b) no regression for ATF, and
  (c) no binary changes for kernels

  both for GCC9 and LLVM.

  I will commit these changes within few days if there's no objection.

LGTM.

Thanks,
Nick




Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index