On Thu, 24 May 2001, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> > First, we are talking about glibc and not the entire userland.
> But since essentially the entire userland is linked with glibc,
> I'm not sure how much that distinction matters, in practical
Do you link statically? If not, then almost no code from glibc is
incorporated into your binaries, with an unimportant exception of a few
functions from libc_nonshared.
> I'm simply saying that if one just does "./configure"
> and "make" for glibc with a mips target, it should default
> to use ll/sc, and that if one simply builds RPMs for binary
> distribution of MIPS/Linux binaries, they should be linked
> with a glibc that uses ll/sc. And that therefore the MIPS/Linux
> kernel for R3000's (and R4100's) should have ll/sc emulation
> support built in by default.
Then you need to change your gcc configuration so that it assumes
"-mips2" (or whatever level you want to) by default. That's typically
done in the gcc's specs file. Nothing about glibc here.
For RPM you might put "-mips2" into optflags in its rc file.
> > Second, do you expect everyone compiling the entire userland from
> > sources? I don't. The normal approach is to take a distribution and
> > build only these pieces which are not satisfying for one reason or
> > another. Just take an ISA I, ISA II or whatever version you need.
> >From where? I'd love to find a decently complete (with compilers,
> networking tools, X, etc.) mipsel distribution of any MIPS ISA level
> less that MIPS V to replace the antique crud that runs on my mipsel
That's a real problem, but there is Debian available for MIPS -- is it
missing anything? The main problem was to get glibc 2.2 right. Since it
was done, building other programs should be easy.
Then building other variants is just a matter of disk space and CPU time.
> > Fourth, maintaining differently optimized distributions is not that
> > troublesome.
> Please don't get me wrong here, because I tremendously
> respect the work that you've been doing for MIPS/Linux,
> but how many differently optimised distributions do you
> presonally build, distribute, support, and maintain?
I understand maintaining a distribution is serious task, but with
appropriate tools maintaining two or more distributions with a common
source set is not much harder than a single one.
For example, using the source set as available at my FTP site, building
differently optimized binaries is as easy as running a script looking
more or less as follows:
for rc in .rpmrc-mipsel .rpmrc-mipsel-II .rpmrc-mipsel-III
for name in *.src.rpm; do
rpm --rcfile=$rc --rebuild $name
with different optflags set in .rpmrc-mipsel* files. It's boring and
disk-consuming but easy and automatic.
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+ e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, PGP key available +