From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Kuvyrkov Subject: Re: Add private syscalls to support NPTL Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:54:58 +0300 Message-ID: <4AE7EAC2.8050409@codesourcery.com> References: <4A89D037.7090807@codesourcery.com> <4A8A54F9.3080100@codesourcery.com> <4A8A6CA2.4040806@codesourcery.com> <10f740e80908180222p4d95b19bp3069e037a6bc590e@mail.gmail.com> <4A91A4C8.5040803@codesourcery.com> <4A943ECC.80607@codesourcery.com> <4A97B69F.4000306@codesourcery.com> <4AC5CF12.8000200@codesourcery.com> <4AE5B9B7.7000106@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]:55629 "EHLO mail.codesourcery.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757559AbZJ1GzD (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:55:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Finn Thain Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Andreas Schwab , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org Finn Thain wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > >> Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> ... >>> Geert, in case there'll be further changes in the NPTL patch, would >>> you like me submit full patch against original tree or only the >>> incremental difference? >> Ping. >> >> Geert, did you have a chance to look over the patch from Oct. 2 2009? >> >> I've done a lot of testing since then and TLS/NPTL support on >> m68k/ColdFire is now stable enough to have no unexpected failures on >> binutils, gcc, g++, libstdc++ and glibc testsuites. > > Nice work. I'm looking forward to eglibc patches so I can build a current > toolchain. We [CodeSourcery] have just updated all of our toolchains, and the GNU/Linux toolchain is based on EGLIBC 2.10 and has well tested TLS/NPTL support. If you are targeting ColdFire you can simply download the toolchain at . > I suppose you can't really backport to eglibc 2.10 until the siginfo > question is resolved. It appears from the list traffic that the consensus > is to adopt the generic struct layout here. Is that the solution that > you've used in testing? I'm not sure if any parts of the m68k kernel port depend on the custom layout of siginfo, so I've only fixed the pieces which I'm sure are wrong. I.e, I've been testing with this patch. > If so, can you send the patches you been testing? All the patches are in the mailing lists. The kernel patches are at http://marc.info/?l=linux-m68k&m=125447760017098&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=linux-m68k&m=125447365311948&w=2 The [E]GLIBC patches are at [M68K/ColdFire patch 1/n] Update sysdep.h http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2009-08/msg00006.html [M68K/ColdFire patch 2/n] Add CFI information to dl-trampoline.S http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2009-08/msg00007.html [M68K/ColdFire patch 3/n] Update jmpbuf-unwind.h http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2009-08/msg00008.html [M68K/ColdFire patch 4/n] Remove kernel headers Update by hand to match your kernel [M68K/ColdFire patch 5/n] Main NPTL patch http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2009-10/msg00006.html http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2009-10/msg00030.html [M68K/ColdFire patch 6/n] Add TLS relocations to elf/elf.h http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2009-08/msg00012.html Should I post this one to glibc-alpha@ for the review? [M68K/ColdFire patch 7/n] Handle libgcc_s.so.2 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4457 Let me know if you find any particular problems with these patches. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov CodeSourcery maxim@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x724