cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.cpu.mk

[Alan Cox]

David O'Brien wrote:

>On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 05:39:27PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>  
>
>>In message: <44C012D1.2050905 at cs.rice.edu>
>>            Alan Cox <alc at cs.rice.edu> writes:
>>: Warner Losh wrote:
>>: 
>>: >imp         2006-07-20 22:42:48 UTC
>>: >
>>: >  FreeBSD src repository
>>: >
>>: >  Modified files:
>>: >    share/mk             bsd.cpu.mk 
>>: >  Log:
>>: >  Remove ALPHA optimization pointer for gcc flags.
>>: >  Add ARM optimization pointer for gcc flags.
>>: >  
>>: >  Revision  Changes    Path
>>: >  1.53      +1 -1      src/share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk
>>: >  
>>: >
>>: I'm curious.  Is there an ETA for a working arm tool-chain in CVS HEAD?
>>
>>As soon as I can work out with David how he wants me to commit it.  Or
>>until I get tired of waiting and make any mistakes I make his problem
>>as punishment for not getting back to me in a timely manner.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm working on getting it in upstream first - what was decided in the
>past as the proper path to grow new architectures in FreeBSD.  Otherwise
>we can go down the same path we did in the past where our toolchain
>diverged very far from the GNU sources and we were left on own
>maintaining them.  Note that from what I've seen none of the anxious ARM
>kernel developers have spent one once of time on this issue.
>
>I'd like to ask when we'll get ARM resources in the FreeBSD.org cluster
>so committers can have access to ARM - I don't.  So it is hard to test
>anything.  Until a month ago no one would agree on a reference platform
>so toolchain work could be tested vs.  spending all my time trying to get
>something working that no one else had.  I am still waiting to get the
>ARM board I purchased in my hands and working.
>
>Alan I'm curious, for you what is the rush?
> 
>  
>
It complicates my efforts to maintain and improve the virtual memory 
system when I can only compile-test changes on five out of the six 
architectures in CVS without jumping through hoops.  In other words, the 
lack of a tool-chain in CVS is becoming a drag, not just on those with 
particular interest in arm, but the project as a whole.  For example. 
after consulting with grehan@ and marcel@, I decided that the best way 
to finish the PG_NX support on amd64 involved a pmap interface change, 
which means changing the arm pmap as well as the five that compile 
out-of-the-box.

In summary, I'm not asking for change to come today, but I would like to 
see signs that there is a plan and progress toward executing that plan.

Alan