On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote:
On 5/9/2014 07:26, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/03/14 01:11, John Marino wrote:
In config.gcc:
+ no | gnat | single)
+ # Let these non-posix thread selections fall through if requested
Support for "gnat" as a thread model was removed in 2011. So I think
you need to remove that case.
I realized that the gnat thread mechanism had been removed a couple of
days ago, but I didn't want to invalidate the ongoing review since it
was a not really an issue. I'll make the change now. This hunk was
obviously created when it did exist.
No problem.
configure.ac:
+ *-*-dragonfly* | *-*-freebsd*)
+ if grep dl_iterate_phdr $target_header_dir/sys/link_elf.h >
/dev/null 2>&1; then
+ gcc_cv_target_dl_iterate_phdr=yes
+ else
+ gcc_cv_target_dl_iterate_phdr=no
+ fi
+ ;;
Presumably you intended to change freebsd* here. Just want a
confirmation. I haven't worked on the *bsd platforms in about 20 years,
so I have no idea if this is right for them in general.
Yes, this is intentional. This is why I also did a full testsuite on
FreeBSD as well as DragonFly to prove that still worked.
OK. Just wanted to be sure. As I mentioned, it's been a *long* time
since I did anything with the *bsd ports.
NetBSD and OpenBSD would be handled similarly when the time comes, but
they would need to grep a different header.
I see you have a dragonfly-stdint.h. Is there a particular reason why
you can't use the freebsd-stdint.h? I didn't check every type, but a
quick glance makes me think they ought to be equivalent.
Similarly for dragonfly.opt.
And there is already precedent for each system to have its own files:
freebsd.opt freebsd-stdint.h
openbsd.opt openbsd-stdint.h
netbsd.opt (
The dragonfly-stdint.h is cleaner than freebsd-stdint.h as well.
Yea, there's always a bit of a natural tension between having this kind
of stuff duplicated vs sharing when their contents are common. I lean
towards the latter in this case for a variety of reasons.
While similar due to heritage, and also due to a conscious effort to
keep the userland compatible where a difference isn't specifically
needed, DragonFly is not FreeBSD. We've had a challenge with software
that consider them to be equivalent in every aspect.
I certainly understand having done similar stuff in the past.
Sometimes changes are made against a FreeBSD file that is not valid for
DragonFly, so even if they are equivalent today they may not be in the
future. We prefer separate configuration files like NetBSD and OpenBSD
have in general.
Right and this is the most important counter-argument to sharing.
They're compatible today, but will they be tomorrow? It sounds like
Dragonfly has a bit of a mandate to be different than FreeBSD, so
there's probably more than the usual chance this stuff could diverge in
the future.
by the way config/dragonfly.h and config/i386/dragonfly.h are
significantly different that FreeBSD counterparts. And we eliminated
the equivalent of config/i386/freebsd64.h by combining it's
functionality into config/i386/dragonfly.h. There are also
platform-specific differences there so there is no question that
DragonFly needs its own header files.
I saw that when scanning dragfonfly.h and freebsd.h to see how much
commonality there was between them.
I'm going to trust the unwind code works and isn't duplicating something
from somewhere else that ought to instead be shared.
Not only is it not duplicated, FreeBSD needs its own, different version
(FreeBSD is currently missing unwind functionality). I have the patch
and that's a separate submission (out of scope for DragonFly target
creation). Believe me, if there is one thing you would not want to
duplicate, it's MD support code. FYI NetBSD and OpenBSD are missing
this functionality too.
So it basically looks good. Can you fix the config.gcc nit and
determine if we can (and should) share files with freebsd. Repost after
those fixes and we should be ready to go.
1) Patch updated online as requested
2) At this exact point in time, we probably can share the files
3) I might debate that we should share the files - that would imply
reviewing the existing counterpart files for NetBSD and OpenBSD and
combining when equivalent.
Let's go ahead and keep the files separate. We can always go back and
combine them at a later date if we see the need.
So with that in mind, the patch is good to go with the gnat thread stuff
removed.
Do you have write access, or do you you need someone to commit the
change for you?
Jeff
