[M3devel] Stuck on adding new cm3 target (AMD64_DRAGONFLY)
jay.krell at cornell.edu
Fri Jan 24 09:45:39 CET 2014
sorry, I'm delayed..so much to do..
I commited the networking fix..
The m3core/unix one I think we already have.
> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:42:01 +0100
> From: adacore at marino.st
> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Stuck on adding new cm3 target (AMD64_DRAGONFLY)
> On 1/19/2014 14:06, John Marino wrote:
> > On 1/19/2014 13:50, Jay K wrote:
> >> And there are advantages not yet implemented, in particular, efficient
> >> exception handling by generating C++.
> > Like FreeBSD (and unlike NetBSD and OpenBSD), DragonFly has implemented
> > dl_iterate_phdr which gcc uses for efficient zero-cost exception
> > handling. That might come in handy here (I implemented it in
> > DragonFly's real-time linker, mainly for Ada/GNAT but C++ benefited.)
> >> Your patches should apply fairly cleanly to any new checkout.
> >> I am willing to through them and apply them to CVS if you want --
> >> depends on if you are ok with my stealing your credit, vs. you want to
> >> commit them yourselves.
> > I would love it if you did this - I'm happy with a mention in the commit
> > message. I just attached a tarball of all the patches I'm using right
> > now. Some of these changes are specifically for the cross compiler (I'm
> > think of the /scripts changes mostly) but most are valid assuming they
> > still apply to the head of the repo. Please take as much as you want
> > with my gratitude.
> >> I already skimmed them and they all look easy.
> >> DragonflyBSD is basically FreeBSD by another name.
> > That's not an accident. As a DragonFly developer that mostly works on
> > userland, I've been converging FreeBSD and DragonFly again. They
> > drifted apart after 10 years, but I thought it better to keep the
> > userlands as similar as possible for 3rd party applications.
> >> Yes, a ton of work has been done on the kernel, file systems, maybe ports.
> >> But the ABI is almost the same -- heck, for the most part,
> >> Linux==NetBSD==FreeBSD==OpenBSD.
> >> Sure, they might be implemented differently, but they are highly source
> >> compatible and every highly object code compatible.
> >>> I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "upgrade". It's the
> >>> cross-compiler that's complaining, and it was built by the latest patches.
> >> Agreed, we are both missing something simple.
> >> Usually this is the error you get when you don't upgrade
> >> Target.i3/Target.m3.
> >> If you want to press on with the current approach and ignore my advise,
> > I'm not ignoring it; it's more like I'm not quite ready to give up since
> > I'm so close. I think I could actually get these libs and cm3 to build
> > on DragonFly if I used AMD64_FREEBSD as the target with the
> > cm3cg-AMD_DRAGONFLY generator. It was building before. I just figured
> > I'd then get stuck on the DragonFly side trying to compile cm3 with
> > itself, theoretically I should get the same error there.
> >> Ugh. I saw something about that in your diffs. Definitely we intend to
> >> link statically.
> >> I actually went to the trouble of removing use of gmp/mpfr/mpc in
> >> current source.
> >> They are used for actually very little and aren't worth it.
> Hi Jay,
> If you get those patches committed and publish an official snapshot
> (compressed tarball) with those changes in it, then I'll update the
> FreeBSD port to that snapshot.
> If new patches are required, say to convert FreeBSD to use the C
> backend, I'll feed those back too.
> Then I'll try porting DragonFly again, your way.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the M3devel