From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stafford Horne Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 08:36:56 +0900 Subject: [OpenRISC] [PATCH v2 11/13] or1k: Build Infrastructure In-Reply-To: References: <20211113031639.2402161-1-shorne@gmail.com> <20211113031639.2402161-12-shorne@gmail.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: openrisc@lists.librecores.org On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:34:10PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Sat, 13 Nov 2021, Stafford Horne via Libc-alpha wrote: > > > diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/or1k/configure.ac b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/or1k/configure.ac > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..d439e7fd53 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/or1k/configure.ac > > @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ > > +GLIBC_PROVIDES dnl See aclocal.m4 in the top level source directory. > > +# Local configure fragment for sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/or1k. > > + > > +arch_minimum_kernel=5.10.0 > > This seems to be a lot more recent than when OpenRISC support was actually > added to the Linux kernel, and also more recent than when 64-bit time > support was added for 32-bit architectures (which may be a convenient > minimum kernel for some new 32-bit architectures for that reason). > Requiring a newer kernel like that is certainly fine if convenient for the > port, but I think the choice of minimum kernel version, and the reasons > for it, deserve mention at least in the commit message and the NEWS file > entry. OK, during the v1 review you mentioned: You'll probably need a newer minimum kernel when requiring 64-bit time support, until all the fallback for 64-bit time on 32-bit kernels without the 64-bit-time syscalls is implemented. I really just chose the version I was working on at the time. I just looked back on it, this version 5.10 is good because. 1. it is a long term support version. 2. in 5.8 I fixed a kernel bug which caused clone/fork to not work with TLS. I will upate the commit/news. -Stafford