Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Yury Norov
2016-02-18T22:35:28Z

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:15:45PM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote:
> Hi, Yury
>
> On 1:09 2016/1/30, Yury Norov wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:59:33PM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>On 1:22 2016/1/15, Yury Norov wrote:
> >>>This is still RFC because we have no glibc yet, that correspnds new ABI
> >>>introduced here. And so we cannot run tests. LP64 and AARCH32 tests show
> >>>no regression though.
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Glad to see this version. I hope I could test it. Where could I find the
> >>corresponding glibc? I could not find it in
> >>http://github.com/norov/glibc.git. Or is there a plan to do it?
> >>
> >>Besides compat wrappers discussed in these series, is there any other
> >>blockers for upstream? I would suppose everyone is intestested in the
> >>result of LTP...
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>
> >>Bamvor
> >>
> >
> >Hi, Bamvor,
> >
> >Just to order all commits, I created new ILP32 branch at [1], that
> >based on 4.4 kernel + [2] + [3]. There's no new glibc suitable for
> >rfc5. But I started with it, and I hope there will be progress soon.
> Cool:)
> >
> >You cannot run LTP as there are some syscalls that are called during
> >dynamic loading that fail, but you can try to build your test statically
> >agaginst current glibc, and there's a big chance it will work.
> >I have a set of 'hello-worlds' working that way.
> Currrently, I got 300+ in ltplite with you glibc[1]. I will try static link
> later.
> >
> >If you have some specific test that you cannot run, you can send it to
> >me, and I will take a look on it.
> Sure, I am reading the test results. Hope we could fix these failure
> together.
>
> Regards
>
> Bamvor
>
> [1] https://github.com/norov/glibc/tree/thunderx-ilp32-32time_toff_t
> >
> >Yury
> >
> >[1] https://github.com/norov/linux/tree/rfc5
> >[2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2116021
> >[3] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2134747
> >
> >>>
> >>> v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/3/704
> >>> v4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/13/691
> >>> v5: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/29/911
> >>>

Hi Bamvor, everybody,

I have new glibc that follows new ABI:
https://github.com/norov/glibc/tree/new-api

It's very draft and dirty, but you can try it with RFC5.
My fail list for ltplite looks like this:
pipeio_4 FAIL 11
abort01 FAIL 2
clone02 FAIL 4
kill10 FAIL 2
kill11 FAIL 2
lstat01A FAIL 1
lstat02 FAIL 1
mmap16 FAIL 6
nanosleep03 FAIL 1
nftw01 FAIL 1
nftw6401 FAIL 1
open12 FAIL 2
pathconf01 FAIL 1
pipe07 FAIL 2
profil01 FAIL 11
readdir01 FAIL 1
readlink01A FAIL 1
rename11 FAIL 2
rmdir02 FAIL 2
sigaltstack01 FAIL 1
sigaltstack02 FAIL 1
stat03 FAIL 1
stat04 FAIL 1
stat06 FAIL 1
umount2_01 FAIL 2
umount2_02 FAIL 2
umount2_03 FAIL 2
utime06 FAIL 2
writev01 FAIL 1
mtest06 FAIL 11
rwtest01 FAIL 2
rwtest02 FAIL 2
rwtest03 FAIL 2
rwtest04 FAIL 2
rwtest05 FAIL 2

Float tests are exluded, but also fail. Totally, ~40 of 787 tests
fail.

Yury