Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [OpenRISC] Removing architectures without upstream gcc support | From | Philipp Wagner <> | Date | Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:10:44 +0100 |
| |
On 02/26/2018 09:00 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Philipp Wagner > <lists@philipp-wagner.com> wrote: >> Am 22.02.2018 um 16:45 schrieb Arnd Bergmann: >>> While building the cross-toolchains, I noticed that overall, we can build almost >>> all linux target architectures with upstream binutils and gcc these days, >>> however there are still some exceptions, and I'd like to find out if anyone >>> has objections to removing the ones that do not have upstream support. >>> This are the four architectures I found: >>> [...] >>> * OpenRISC is a RISC architecture with a free license and an >>> active community. It seems to have lost a bit of steam after RISC-V >>> is rapidly taking over that niche, but there are chips out there and >>> the design isn't going away. Listing it here for completeness only >>> because there is no upstream gcc port yet, but this will hopefully >>> change in the future based on >>> https://lists.librecores.org/pipermail/openrisc/2018-January/000958.html >>> and I had no problems locating the gcc-7.x tree for building my >>> toolchains. The port is actively being maintained. >> >> It's mostly mentioned in the mailing list thread you linked to, but just >> for completeness in this thread: >> >> The OpenRISC GCC port is maintained and regularly updated to newer GCC >> versions. It is not, however, upstreamed to the FSF due to a single >> missing FSF copyright assignment from a developer who has written large >> parts of the initial port. All code which has copyright assignments in >> place (binutils, GDB, etc.) has been upstreamed lately. >> >> For GCC, Stafford Horne is actively working on rewriting the parts which >> we don't have the FSF copyright assignment for (and unless something >> very surprising happens, won't get). [If anyone wants to help, there's >> GSoC project for it as well: >> https://fossi-foundation.org/gsoc18-ideas#openrisc-gcc-port] >> >> So I'd be very sad if the openrisc port gets dropped from Linux upstream. > > Yes, definitely. What I was really trying to say here is I consider openrisc > an obvious exception to the 'no more ports without upstream gcc' rule > because of the above. > > On a related note, has anyone successfully built an openrisc kernel with > llvm/clang? As we discussed for arch/hexagon/, that architecture is unlikely > to ever get an upstream gcc port, but like openrisc does have an upstream > llvm port and they actually use that.
Actually the LLVM port of or1k isn't upstream either. CCing whitequark, who might know more about the (non-)plans of getting the backend upstream. I also don't know of anyone having tried to build the openrisc kernel with LLVM, would certainly be an interesting thing to try.
> I know that x86 and arm64 mostly work with llvm, arm32 works in some of > the more common configurations at least (not big-endian or older CPUs > though) and some others probably work as well. I have already build both > gcc-5.5 and gcc-7.3 for openrisc and uploaded those to > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/, but if llvm works as > well, that could be one more reason to try to build a working set of > clang based cross toolchains.
Philipp
| |