Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:50:56PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > On 19.11.13 08:23, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:00:55PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > >> Here the two patches > >> amd64: > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_amd64.diff > >> i386: > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_i386.diff > > > > Amd64 patch is fine. For i386, I do not see a definition of the > > WEAK_REFERENCE in the patch, and quick search of the pre-existing > > definition in sys/i386 or lib/libc/i386 does not reveal anything. > > It's there now. Updated the diff. i386 patch looks fine. pgpv0zeuDTdYV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On 19.11.13 08:23, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:00:55PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: >> I prepared two patches, see below. The amd64 one is reviewed by bde@ and >> the i386 is compile tested by me (runtime is theoretically also done, >> but I'm not sure since I do not have 32-bit apps on my amd64). > Use cc -m32. > >> >> The amd64 is compile and runtime tested. The tools, nm, shows that we >> have the weak_references as before. >> >> If you agree I'd like to commit both within a few days to -CURRENT. If >> someone steps up and confirms that the i386 part also runs, would be >> great, but I expect it to work. >> >> If I'm correct, there is some similar work to be done on arm, mips and >> sparc64, I'm happy to do this if the people like to have it done. But I >> do not own either of them to test in native config. Except sparc64. >> Here I have blech ;) >> >> >> Here the two patches >> amd64: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_amd64.diff >> i386: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_i386.diff > > Amd64 patch is fine. For i386, I do not see a definition of the > WEAK_REFERENCE in the patch, and quick search of the pre-existing > definition in sys/i386 or lib/libc/i386 does not reveal anything. It's there now. Updated the diff. Thanks, Andreas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:00:55PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > I prepared two patches, see below. The amd64 one is reviewed by bde@ and > the i386 is compile tested by me (runtime is theoretically also done, > but I'm not sure since I do not have 32-bit apps on my amd64). Use cc -m32. > > The amd64 is compile and runtime tested. The tools, nm, shows that we > have the weak_references as before. > > If you agree I'd like to commit both within a few days to -CURRENT. If > someone steps up and confirms that the i386 part also runs, would be > great, but I expect it to work. > > If I'm correct, there is some similar work to be done on arm, mips and > sparc64, I'm happy to do this if the people like to have it done. But I > do not own either of them to test in native config. Except sparc64. > Here I have blech ;) > > > Here the two patches > amd64: > http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_amd64.diff > i386: > http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_i386.diff Amd64 patch is fine. For i386, I do not see a definition of the WEAK_REFERENCE in the patch, and quick search of the pre-existing definition in sys/i386 or lib/libc/i386 does not reveal anything. pgpBsSY2Ub7oH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On 18.11.13 23:56, Adrian Chadd wrote: > [snip] > > wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/mips has links to the MIPS emulator setups. > > There's no excuse to avoid testing on MIPS. :-) Np, wasn't aware of that.. :) And I do not shy the work. Thanks, Andreas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
[snip] wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/mips has links to the MIPS emulator setups. There's no excuse to avoid testing on MIPS. :-) -adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On 14.11.13 07:00, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:18:27PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: >> On 11.11.13 08:47, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 11:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> anyone interested in this patch to remove the WEAK_ALIAS and introduce >>>> the WEAK_REFERENCE? >>>> >>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref.amd64.diff >>>> >>>> I have this running since months on amd64 and I have no issues with. >>>> >>>> I remember having had a communication with bde@ that he is in favour in >>>> doing that but I lacked the time to complete. >>>> A similar thing is pending for i386 and sparc64. The ppc stuff is >>>> already committed since a longer time. >>>> >>>> If no one is interested, I'm happy to clean up my tree and skip this. >>> >>> I am not sure why do you include the changes to END() in the same patch. >>> Did you looked over the all END() usages on amd64, is it always paired >>> with ENTRY() ? The CNAME() for ELF is the pedantism anyway. >>> >>> Other than the somewhat questionable inclusion of the END() change, which >>> should be committed separately, if ever, I think the change is fine. >> >> Am I correct, without this line in sys/amd64/include/asm.h? >> >> #define END(name) .size CNAME(name), . - CNAME(name) > Yes. If committing it, please make separate commit. Ok, thanks! >> If so, I just need a usable dot.emacs file to match the formatting >> expectations from bde. Sounds easy, but I didn't succeed so far. > Nah, cannot be. Emacs source code has too many inconsistencies, the > code does not follow its own style. I doubt Bruce would use it. :) I asked and learned, (n)vi(m) it is much simpler than I thought. Keep it simple I prepared two patches, see below. The amd64 one is reviewed by bde@ and the i386 is compile tested by me (runtime is theoretically also done, but I'm not sure since I do not have 32-bit apps on my amd64). The amd64 is compile and runtime tested. The tools, nm, shows that we have the weak_references as before. If you agree I'd like to commit both within a few days to -CURRENT. If someone steps up and confirms that the i386 part also runs, would be great, but I expect it to work. If I'm correct, there is some similar work to be done on arm, mips and sparc64, I'm happy to do this if the people like to have it done. But I do not own either of them to test in native config. Except sparc64. Here I have blech ;) Here the two patches amd64: http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_amd64.diff i386: http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_i386.diff Thanks for feedback. Andreas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:18:27PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > On 11.11.13 08:47, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 11:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> anyone interested in this patch to remove the WEAK_ALIAS and introduce > >> the WEAK_REFERENCE? > >> > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref.amd64.diff > >> > >> I have this running since months on amd64 and I have no issues with. > >> > >> I remember having had a communication with bde@ that he is in favour in > >> doing that but I lacked the time to complete. > >> A similar thing is pending for i386 and sparc64. The ppc stuff is > >> already committed since a longer time. > >> > >> If no one is interested, I'm happy to clean up my tree and skip this. > > > > I am not sure why do you include the changes to END() in the same patch. > > Did you looked over the all END() usages on amd64, is it always paired > > with ENTRY() ? The CNAME() for ELF is the pedantism anyway. > > > > Other than the somewhat questionable inclusion of the END() change, which > > should be committed separately, if ever, I think the change is fine. > > Am I correct, without this line in sys/amd64/include/asm.h? > > #define END(name) .size CNAME(name), . - CNAME(name) Yes. If committing it, please make separate commit. > > If so, I just need a usable dot.emacs file to match the formatting > expectations from bde. Sounds easy, but I didn't succeed so far. Nah, cannot be. Emacs source code has too many inconsistencies, the code does not follow its own style. I doubt Bruce would use it. pgpBq2r9sqNf3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On 11.11.13 08:47, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 11:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> anyone interested in this patch to remove the WEAK_ALIAS and introduce >> the WEAK_REFERENCE? >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref.amd64.diff >> >> I have this running since months on amd64 and I have no issues with. >> >> I remember having had a communication with bde@ that he is in favour in >> doing that but I lacked the time to complete. >> A similar thing is pending for i386 and sparc64. The ppc stuff is >> already committed since a longer time. >> >> If no one is interested, I'm happy to clean up my tree and skip this. > > I am not sure why do you include the changes to END() in the same patch. > Did you looked over the all END() usages on amd64, is it always paired > with ENTRY() ? The CNAME() for ELF is the pedantism anyway. > > Other than the somewhat questionable inclusion of the END() change, which > should be committed separately, if ever, I think the change is fine. Am I correct, without this line in sys/amd64/include/asm.h? #define END(name) .size CNAME(name), . - CNAME(name) If so, I just need a usable dot.emacs file to match the formatting expectations from bde. Sounds easy, but I didn't succeed so far. Thank you for the feedback! Andreas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 11:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > Hi all, > > anyone interested in this patch to remove the WEAK_ALIAS and introduce > the WEAK_REFERENCE? > > http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref.amd64.diff > > I have this running since months on amd64 and I have no issues with. > > I remember having had a communication with bde@ that he is in favour in > doing that but I lacked the time to complete. > A similar thing is pending for i386 and sparc64. The ppc stuff is > already committed since a longer time. > > If no one is interested, I'm happy to clean up my tree and skip this. I am not sure why do you include the changes to END() in the same patch. Did you looked over the all END() usages on amd64, is it always paired with ENTRY() ? The CNAME() for ELF is the pedantism anyway. Other than the somewhat questionable inclusion of the END() change, which should be committed separately, if ever, I think the change is fine. pgpVQ9H_8Jdey.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: WEAK_REFERENCE?
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, Andreas Tobler wrote: anyone interested in this patch to remove the WEAK_ALIAS and introduce the WEAK_REFERENCE? http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref.amd64.diff I have this running since months on amd64 and I have no issues with. I remember having had a communication with bde@ that he is in favour in doing that but I lacked the time to complete. A similar thing is pending for i386 and sparc64. The ppc stuff is already committed since a longer time. If no one is interested, I'm happy to clean up my tree and skip this. I have only minor interest in it. I might have looked at it before. This version formats the backslashes in macro definitions very badly by putting them in random columns between about 96 and 120 instead of in column 72. Bruce ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
WEAK_REFERENCE?
Hi all, anyone interested in this patch to remove the WEAK_ALIAS and introduce the WEAK_REFERENCE? http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref.amd64.diff I have this running since months on amd64 and I have no issues with. I remember having had a communication with bde@ that he is in favour in doing that but I lacked the time to complete. A similar thing is pending for i386 and sparc64. The ppc stuff is already committed since a longer time. If no one is interested, I'm happy to clean up my tree and skip this. Thanks, Andreas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
