| Message ID | 659bd8c00e79be1a47fc2aae75accd69b3bedaf4.1740071755.git.oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RISC-V runtime detection of extenstions | expand |
On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > There are two reasons for that: > 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11 > uses GCC 10.2.1. Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which continues to mention only x86 and Arm. Jan
On 2/21/25 9:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >> There are two reasons for that: >> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11 >> uses GCC 10.2.1. > Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which > continues to mention only x86 and Arm. I missed to add this patch:https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/57901e60066e93d986670aa91fb390774c965d3f. Would it be enough just to do a reply for this patch series and send what git format-patch gives? ~ Oleksii
On 21.02.2025 12:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > On 2/21/25 9:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> There are two reasons for that: >>> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11 >>> uses GCC 10.2.1. >> Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which >> continues to mention only x86 and Arm. > > I missed to add this patch:https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/57901e60066e93d986670aa91fb390774c965d3f. > > Would it be enough just to do a reply for this patch series and send what git format-patch gives? Don't know. In particular I have been under the impression that "git format-patch" formats things slightly differently than what "git am" would expect. Can't you use "git send-email" here as well, making that patch 0.5/4? Jan
On 21.02.2025 12:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > On 2/21/25 9:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> There are two reasons for that: >>> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11 >>> uses GCC 10.2.1. >> Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which >> continues to mention only x86 and Arm. > > I missed to add this patch:https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/57901e60066e93d986670aa91fb390774c965d3f. > > Would it be enough just to do a reply for this patch series and send what git format-patch gives? Oh, and: The patch description wants to change as well before you send. Jan
On 2/21/25 1:30 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 21.02.2025 12:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >> On 2/21/25 9:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>>> There are two reasons for that: >>>> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11 >>>> uses GCC 10.2.1. >>> Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which >>> continues to mention only x86 and Arm. >> I missed to add this patch:https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/57901e60066e93d986670aa91fb390774c965d3f. >> >> Would it be enough just to do a reply for this patch series and send what git format-patch gives? > Don't know. In particular I have been under the impression that "git format-patch" > formats things slightly differently than what "git am" would expect. Can't you use > "git send-email" here as well, making that patch 0.5/4? Done by using git send-email. At least, my mail app parsed this case well. ~ Oleksii
diff --git a/automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml b/automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml index 35e224366f..57fe29127d 100644 --- a/automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml +++ b/automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml @@ -720,20 +720,6 @@ debian-12-ppc64le-gcc: HYPERVISOR_ONLY: y # RISC-V 64 cross-build -debian-11-riscv64-gcc: - extends: .gcc-riscv64-cross-build - variables: - CONTAINER: debian:11-riscv64 - KBUILD_DEFCONFIG: tiny64_defconfig - HYPERVISOR_ONLY: y - -debian-11-riscv64-gcc-debug: - extends: .gcc-riscv64-cross-build-debug - variables: - CONTAINER: debian:11-riscv64 - KBUILD_DEFCONFIG: tiny64_defconfig - HYPERVISOR_ONLY: y - debian-12-riscv64-gcc: extends: .gcc-riscv64-cross-build variables: diff --git a/automation/scripts/containerize b/automation/scripts/containerize index bc43136078..0953e0728c 100755 --- a/automation/scripts/containerize +++ b/automation/scripts/containerize @@ -31,7 +31,6 @@ case "_${CONTAINER}" in _fedora) CONTAINER="${BASE}/fedora:41-x86_64";; _bullseye-ppc64le) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:11-ppc64le" ;; _bookworm-ppc64le) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:12-ppc64le" ;; - _bullseye-riscv64) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:11-riscv64" ;; _bookworm-riscv64) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:12-riscv64" ;; _bookworm-x86_64-gcc-ibt) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:12-x86_64-gcc-ibt" ;; _bookworm|_bookworm-x86_64|_) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:12-x86_64" ;;
There are two reasons for that: 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11 uses GCC 10.2.1. 2. Xen requires mandatory some Z extensions, but GCC 10.2.1 does not support Z extensions in -march, causing the compilation to fail. Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com> --- Changes in v7: - new patch. --- automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml | 14 -------------- automation/scripts/containerize | 1 - 2 files changed, 15 deletions(-)