From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: fweimer@redhat.com (Florian Weimer)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:42:24 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v7 resend 00/20] ILP32 for ARM64
In-Reply-To: <20170411183636.GB5091@yury-N73SV>
References: <1488395968-14313-1-git-send-email-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20170410194740.GA28503@yury-N73SV>
 <20170411113334.GA27857@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20170411183636.GB5091@yury-N73SV>
Message-ID: <18edebeb-201e-a9d6-7e66-6e34f98a40df@redhat.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 04/11/2017 08:36 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Also, the latest benchmarks I've seen were mostly for user space
>> while I'm more concerned with the user-kernel interface
>> (https://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=148690490713310&w=2).
>
>> On the glibc testing side, have the regressions been identified/fixed?
>
> I run LTP for testing the ABI and kernel, and there is no failures in
> ltplite scenario. With glibc testsuite, there's only 3 failures
> comparing to lp64. (Steve, fix me if something changed.) This is
> slides on ilp32 from Linaro Connect, hope you'll find it useful.
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TKZqgH0XJUgMMGkw2fJA3Lzr57slht1sGKYJVBJTNM4/edit?usp=sharing

The listed failures are:

misc/tst-sync_file_range
nptl/tst-stack4
malloc/tst-mallocstate

If necessary, I will fix malloc/tst-mallocstate once there's support for 
a new architecture in build-many-glibcs.py.  The failure is 
architecture-independent, it's related to the lack of a compat symbol 
and the difficulty of checking for that at the Makefile or test level.

nptl/tst-stack4 is also a generic failure, I think.

misc/tst-sync_file_range is probably a real failure related to argument 
passing.  I think this system call was problematic on other 
architectures, too.

Thanks,
Florian

(Sorry for the wide Cc: list despite the glibc content.)