Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: WANG Xuerui <i.gentoo@×××××.name>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Plans for a Gentoo/LoongArch port
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:01:53
Message-Id: 966ac676-9978-ebaa-ef56-92359fdb89b7@xen0n.name
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Plans for a Gentoo/LoongArch port by Ulrich Mueller
1 Hi Ulrich,
2
3
4 On 2021/8/24 16:46, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
5 >>>>>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, WANG Xuerui wrote:
6 >> It seems the discussion has gone quiet for a while now, so I take that
7 >> we choose ARCH=loong over ARCH=loongarch according to GLEP 53?
8 > LGTM
9 >
10 >> If that doesn't receive much objection, I'll prepare and send the
11 >> first few eclass patches soon.
12 > We also need to update the conditional in eselect:
13 > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/eselect.git/tree/libs/package-manager.bash.in#n70
14 Thanks for the reminder!
15 > Does the GNU triplet (i.e. HOSTTYPE in bash) always use "loongarch"
16 > literally, or can it have some suffix?
17
18 According to their earlier reservation[1] and actual vendor system
19 behavior, there are 3 possible values:
20
21 - loongarch64
22 - loongarch32
23 - loongarchx32
24
25 Only the LP64 ABI is fully supported by the current upstream submission.
26 The "loongarch32" thing might NOT be compatible with the LP64 ABI,
27 instead it might be something embedded-oriented, even instruction
28 subsets supported might differ. The "loongarchx32" is for an
29 n32/x32-like ABI that doesn't exist yet, and probably will never get
30 implemented.
31
32 Accordingly, I think we only have to care about "loongarch64" for now.
33
34 [1]:
35 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=config.git;a=patch;h=c8ddc8472f8efcadafc1ef53ca1d863415fddd5f

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Plans for a Gentoo/LoongArch port Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>