Message ID | cover.1691783604.git.falcon@tinylab.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | selftests/nolibc: customize CROSS_COMPILE for all supported architectures | expand |
Hi Zhangjin, On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 04:27:01AM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > Hi, Willy > > Here is v2 of the customized CROSS_COMPILE support, this helps a lot > during the testing of the other cross-arch nolibc changes: > > $ ARCHS="i386 x86_64 arm64 arm mips ppc ppc64 ppc64le riscv s390" > $ for arch in ${ARCHS[@]}; do printf "%9s: " $arch; make run-user XARCH=$arch | grep status; done > > Based on your suggestion, we did this changes: > > - The qemu notes patch [1] is removed, welcome your doc file ;-) > - Arnd's crosstools are customized by default > - Import cc-cross-prefix to support local cross toolchains too > - Use mips64 toolchains for mips like x86_64 toolchains for i386, allow > download less toolchains > - Use HOSTCC for libc-test compiling (...) I think it's basically OK (just this mips64 thing). I've picked patch 3 already since it's a fix. Once we agree on what to do there, I can queue it if that helps (I can modify mips64- to mips- in the patch if that's OK for you, no need to resend for this, just let me know). I think that later I'll further extend XARCH with new variants to support ARMv5 and Thumb2, because we have different code for this and I continue to manually change the CFLAGS to test both. Thanks, Willy
Hi, Willy > Hi Zhangjin, > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 04:27:01AM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > Hi, Willy > > > > Here is v2 of the customized CROSS_COMPILE support, this helps a lot > > during the testing of the other cross-arch nolibc changes: > > > > $ ARCHS="i386 x86_64 arm64 arm mips ppc ppc64 ppc64le riscv s390" > > $ for arch in ${ARCHS[@]}; do printf "%9s: " $arch; make run-user XARCH=$arch | grep status; done > > > > Based on your suggestion, we did this changes: > > > > - The qemu notes patch [1] is removed, welcome your doc file ;-) > > - Arnd's crosstools are customized by default > > - Import cc-cross-prefix to support local cross toolchains too > > - Use mips64 toolchains for mips like x86_64 toolchains for i386, allow > > download less toolchains > > - Use HOSTCC for libc-test compiling > (...) > > I think it's basically OK (just this mips64 thing). I've picked patch 3 > already since it's a fix. Once we agree on what to do there, I can queue > it if that helps (I can modify mips64- to mips- in the patch if that's > OK for you, no need to resend for this, just let me know). > It is ok for me, thanks ;-) I thought somebody may add mips64 support soon, but we do only have mips currently, it is fair to not use mips64 toolchain. > I think that later I'll further extend XARCH with new variants to > support ARMv5 and Thumb2, because we have different code for this > and I continue to manually change the CFLAGS to test both. > Ok, what about further add x86_64 as the default variant for x86 (like ppc for powerpc)? and then it is able to only resereve the variables for x86_64. I have prepared a patch for this goal in our new tinyconfig patchset, it will further avoid adding the same nolibc-test-x86.config and nolibc-test-x86_64.config. Best regards, Zhangjin > Thanks, > Willy
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 06:05:03PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > I think that later I'll further extend XARCH with new variants to > > support ARMv5 and Thumb2, because we have different code for this > > and I continue to manually change the CFLAGS to test both. > > > > Ok, what about further add x86_64 as the default variant for x86 (like ppc for > powerpc)? and then it is able to only resereve the variables for x86_64. I have > prepared a patch for this goal in our new tinyconfig patchset, it will further > avoid adding the same nolibc-test-x86.config and nolibc-test-x86_64.config. I'm confused, x86 already defaults to x86_64, it's just that it depends on the .config itself to figure whether to produce a 32- or 64-bit kernel. But for example it starts qemu in 64-bit mode. Am I missing anything ? Willy
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 06:05:03PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > I think that later I'll further extend XARCH with new variants to > > > support ARMv5 and Thumb2, because we have different code for this > > > and I continue to manually change the CFLAGS to test both. > > > > > > > Ok, what about further add x86_64 as the default variant for x86 (like ppc for > > powerpc)? and then it is able to only resereve the variables for x86_64. I have > > prepared a patch for this goal in our new tinyconfig patchset, it will further > > avoid adding the same nolibc-test-x86.config and nolibc-test-x86_64.config. > > I'm confused, x86 already defaults to x86_64, it's just that it depends > on the .config itself to figure whether to produce a 32- or 64-bit kernel. > But for example it starts qemu in 64-bit mode. Am I missing anything ? > In kernel side, it is, but in our nolibc-test, we have added a copy of x86_64 for x86: $ grep -E "_x86" tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile IMAGE_x86_64 = arch/x86/boot/bzImage IMAGE_x86 = arch/x86/boot/bzImage CROSS_COMPILE_x86_64 ?= x86_64-linux- x86_64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_x86 ?= x86_64-linux- x86_64-linux-gnu- DEFCONFIG_x86_64 = defconfig DEFCONFIG_x86 = defconfig QEMU_ARCH_x86_64 = x86_64 QEMU_ARCH_x86 = x86_64 QEMU_ARGS_x86_64 = -M pc -append "console=ttyS0,9600 i8042.noaux panic=-1 $(TEST:%=NOLIBC_TEST=%)" QEMU_ARGS_x86 = -M pc -append "console=ttyS0,9600 i8042.noaux panic=-1 $(TEST:%=NOLIBC_TEST=%)" With 'XARCH', the "_x86" copy of them can be simply replaced with such a line: # configure default variants for target kernel supported architectures XARCH_powerpc = ppc +XARCH_x86 = x86_64 XARCH = $(or $(XARCH_$(ARCH)),$(ARCH)) And therefore, the future nolibc-test-x86_64.config is also enough for x86. But I have seen the 'x86' exception in tools/include/nolibc/Makefile, just a confirm on if this replacement is ok. BR, Zhangjin > Willy
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 03:38:54PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 06:05:03PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > > I think that later I'll further extend XARCH with new variants to > > > > support ARMv5 and Thumb2, because we have different code for this > > > > and I continue to manually change the CFLAGS to test both. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, what about further add x86_64 as the default variant for x86 (like ppc for > > > powerpc)? and then it is able to only resereve the variables for x86_64. I have > > > prepared a patch for this goal in our new tinyconfig patchset, it will further > > > avoid adding the same nolibc-test-x86.config and nolibc-test-x86_64.config. > > > > I'm confused, x86 already defaults to x86_64, it's just that it depends > > on the .config itself to figure whether to produce a 32- or 64-bit kernel. > > But for example it starts qemu in 64-bit mode. Am I missing anything ? > > > > In kernel side, it is, but in our nolibc-test, we have added a copy of x86_64 > for x86: > > $ grep -E "_x86" tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > IMAGE_x86_64 = arch/x86/boot/bzImage > IMAGE_x86 = arch/x86/boot/bzImage > CROSS_COMPILE_x86_64 ?= x86_64-linux- x86_64-linux-gnu- > CROSS_COMPILE_x86 ?= x86_64-linux- x86_64-linux-gnu- > DEFCONFIG_x86_64 = defconfig > DEFCONFIG_x86 = defconfig > QEMU_ARCH_x86_64 = x86_64 > QEMU_ARCH_x86 = x86_64 > QEMU_ARGS_x86_64 = -M pc -append "console=ttyS0,9600 i8042.noaux panic=-1 $(TEST:%=NOLIBC_TEST=%)" > QEMU_ARGS_x86 = -M pc -append "console=ttyS0,9600 i8042.noaux panic=-1 $(TEST:%=NOLIBC_TEST=%)" > > With 'XARCH', the "_x86" copy of them can be simply replaced with such a line: > > # configure default variants for target kernel supported architectures > XARCH_powerpc = ppc > +XARCH_x86 = x86_64 > XARCH = $(or $(XARCH_$(ARCH)),$(ARCH)) > > And therefore, the future nolibc-test-x86_64.config is also enough for x86. > > But I have seen the 'x86' exception in tools/include/nolibc/Makefile, just a > confirm on if this replacement is ok. Ah I thought you meant the opposite, i.e. that ppc did map to powerpc that I was not seeing anywhere else. Yes we can probably do that and remove the x86-specific lines later. Willy
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:25:00AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 03:38:54PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 06:05:03PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > > > I think that later I'll further extend XARCH with new variants to > > > > > support ARMv5 and Thumb2, because we have different code for this > > > > > and I continue to manually change the CFLAGS to test both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, what about further add x86_64 as the default variant for x86 (like ppc for > > > > powerpc)? and then it is able to only resereve the variables for x86_64. I have > > > > prepared a patch for this goal in our new tinyconfig patchset, it will further > > > > avoid adding the same nolibc-test-x86.config and nolibc-test-x86_64.config. > > > > > > I'm confused, x86 already defaults to x86_64, it's just that it depends > > > on the .config itself to figure whether to produce a 32- or 64-bit kernel. > > > But for example it starts qemu in 64-bit mode. Am I missing anything ? > > > > > > > In kernel side, it is, but in our nolibc-test, we have added a copy of x86_64 > > for x86: > > > > $ grep -E "_x86" tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > > IMAGE_x86_64 = arch/x86/boot/bzImage > > IMAGE_x86 = arch/x86/boot/bzImage > > CROSS_COMPILE_x86_64 ?= x86_64-linux- x86_64-linux-gnu- > > CROSS_COMPILE_x86 ?= x86_64-linux- x86_64-linux-gnu- > > DEFCONFIG_x86_64 = defconfig > > DEFCONFIG_x86 = defconfig > > QEMU_ARCH_x86_64 = x86_64 > > QEMU_ARCH_x86 = x86_64 > > QEMU_ARGS_x86_64 = -M pc -append "console=ttyS0,9600 i8042.noaux panic=-1 $(TEST:%=NOLIBC_TEST=%)" > > QEMU_ARGS_x86 = -M pc -append "console=ttyS0,9600 i8042.noaux panic=-1 $(TEST:%=NOLIBC_TEST=%)" > > > > With 'XARCH', the "_x86" copy of them can be simply replaced with such a line: > > > > # configure default variants for target kernel supported architectures > > XARCH_powerpc = ppc > > +XARCH_x86 = x86_64 > > XARCH = $(or $(XARCH_$(ARCH)),$(ARCH)) > > > > And therefore, the future nolibc-test-x86_64.config is also enough for x86. > > > > But I have seen the 'x86' exception in tools/include/nolibc/Makefile, just a > > confirm on if this replacement is ok. > > Ah I thought you meant the opposite, i.e. that ppc did map to powerpc > that I was not seeing anywhere else. Yes we can probably do that and > remove the x86-specific lines later. by "later" I mean "further" in the file. Willy