From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from todd.t-8ch.de (todd.t-8ch.de [159.69.126.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0805137188B; Tue, 25 Aug 2026 16:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.126.157 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787675905; cv=none; b=XltcupnYukzyX3s6K009wNzt9lojqws5RnYyMc3WdvNAMqmd1CcMdJ7rxJ+GB6hyCNHEJ4s6Byr1jJxPosABXhOsR7T9aNJygFrTmZcmPGAh4V+v/WlLUUlW3Ll3ghyC45OMgIkSMa7wFgtVjHvo6BmxQ8k/hTPY7xbJykvX8e4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787675905; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KHEFsEFlriPfn9xExvhOOctvqsJVMZuuaWR6qIWp7JU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hxkz4Byx2DT9DomRvZtizGRc/tKw1hnL7JY6qJAZAPTRu70kXdQkYk5Q7dvsP8Di59MxE9iAfNSf0MeU2zNaHIsPIXBL4w9fg9HgZAugEMVvSgmlIckE/ixknT7+arP+h8sZZJ7kC6nG66uTtYtPYFg+F5sjX4+Pb6aPpjvp9mI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=weissschuh.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=weissschuh.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=weissschuh.net header.i=@weissschuh.net header.b=irp/I+X1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.126.157 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=weissschuh.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=weissschuh.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=weissschuh.net header.i=@weissschuh.net header.b="irp/I+X1" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=weissschuh.net; s=mail; t=1787675901; bh=KHEFsEFlriPfn9xExvhOOctvqsJVMZuuaWR6qIWp7JU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=irp/I+X1PNLdPCd76uNVI6RaVP/dqYxDIWL1JMHDu/kTcpUhXFMeotH5EzH3adAj+ TiK3M3g4qr5/qhB2efaaft4Pw92oO/zY4jlgetEM1q0k2LTyYyM1jEmGzHmJYvhCO/ KgcWdzspdvQ/DGoXowwTmJHRmernsc7sW+8prEic= Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 18:38:20 +0200 From: Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= To: David Laight Cc: Willy Tarreau , Shuah Khan , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: add 64-bit parisc support Message-ID: References: <20260820-nolibc-parisc64-v1-1-067ebe7c8efb@weissschuh.net> <20260824091958.7810094f@pumpkin> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260824091958.7810094f@pumpkin> On 2026-08-24 09:19:58+0100, David Laight wrote: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 11:32:50 +0200 > Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > Extend the existing parisc support to also handle 64-bit mode. > > > > Some peculiarities: > > * The nonstandard ftruncate64 system call requires a workaround. > > * The linker defaults to main() as entry point, which needs to be > > switched to _start() explicitly. > > * The linker defaults to dynamic linking, which needs to be disabled > > explicitly. > > * With the default -Os, gcc does not use 64-bit multiplication > > instructions, requiring libgcc. Use -O2 instead. > > * There is no qemu-user available. > > * CONFIG_COMPAT needs to be disabled to avoid build errors due to a > > missing 32-bit vDSO compiler. > ... > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/run-tests.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/run-tests.sh > > index 3da806e2b302..a50a47d9df2c 100755 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/run-tests.sh > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/run-tests.sh > > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ all_archs=( > > sparc32 sparc64 > > m68k > > sh4 > > - parisc32 > > + parisc32 parisc64 > > alpha > > hexagon > > ) > > @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ crosstool_arch() { > > sparc*) echo sparc64;; > > x32*) echo x86_64;; > > parisc32) echo hppa;; > > + parisc64) echo hppa64;; > > *) echo "$1";; > > esac > > } > > @@ -206,11 +207,11 @@ test_arch() { > > exit 1 > > esac > > printf '%-15s' "$arch:" > > - if [ "$arch" = "m68k" -o "$arch" = "sh4" -o "$arch" = "openrisc" -o "$arch" = "parisc32" -o "$arch" = "alpha" ] && [ "$llvm" = "1" ]; then > > + if [ "$arch" = "m68k" -o "$arch" = "sh4" -o "$arch" = "openrisc" -o "$arch" = "parisc*" -o "$arch" = "alpha" ] && [ "$llvm" = "1" ]; then > > Would it be better to put the llvm condition first? Ack, I'll switch this in a preparatory patch. > > > echo "Unsupported configuration" > > "Unsupported compiler" ? Not much difference IMO. > > return > > fi > > - if [ "$arch" = "x32" ] && [ "$test_mode" = "user" ]; then > > + if [ "$arch" = "x32" -o "$arch" = "parisc64" ] && [ "$test_mode" = "user" ]; then > > Ditto. Ack, as above. Thanks, Thomas