On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 7:20 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 5:15 PM David Abdurachmanov > <david.abdurachmanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:26 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:05 PM David Abdurachmanov > > > <david.abdurachmanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:54 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > * David Abdurachmanov: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but I wanted to > > > > > >> raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain team ... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Here's the bug: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179 > > > > > >> RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It refers to this change in binutils 2.41: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a87d76f528fafbb4270a98746bc > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this mainly > > > > > >> affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and similar) > > > > > >> which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either won't link > > > > > >> correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from binutils 2.41. > > > > > > > > > > > > Correction. This is broken in <= 2.41 (incl. the current stable > > > > > > binutils release). > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much more > > > > > >> serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or just a > > > > > >> few. I initially thought this only affected programs using 128 bit > > > > > >> ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after reading the > > > > > >> commit I'm not sure that is really true. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nelson Chu committed (5 days ago) a change: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a87d76f528fafbb4270a98746bc > > > > > > > > > > > > This will accept whatever is produced by <= 2.41 and the final binary > > > > > > will be correct. There is also a new ld flag (--check-uleb128) which > > > > > > can produce a warning if it detects an issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > I plan/hope to use binutils 2.42 in Fedora/RISCV 40. That would happen > > > > > > before I start mass rebuilding, and that should fix this. > > > > > > > > > > Cc:ing Nick and Siddhesh for awareness. > > > > > > > > > > The current plan is to use binutils 2.41 for the mass rebuild. > > > > > > > > In Fedora/RISCV we typically end up using the latest available > > > > binutils. We are slightly different from upstream/normal Fedora. > > > > > > Which is fine when you're an out of mainline architecture but these > > > sorts of things need to be resolved well and truly before any > > > incorporation can happen. > > > > 100% true. We have plenty of stuff that isn't yet submitted to the > > official dist-git. > > Is that delta easily viewable somewhere? Kinda. If you list all the builds for the f40 tag in Fedora/RISCV Koji, and then look for the .X.riscv64 pattern before %{?dist} you will get a list of packages that are modified in some way. Today that's around ~277 packages. A good portion of those are easy fixes (e.g. a lot of packages assume that valgrind is available on just any arch, and never check %{valgrind_arches}). Some of the changes are bigger, like full ports, that for one or another reason were not accepted upstream (yet). Not all the changes are good to for a PR. Thus some definitely need some refinement to do the correct thing. Then actual changes are here: http://fedora.riscv.rocks:3000/rpms/<pkg_name> Typically this should have a branch with "-riscv64" suffix, e.g., f38-riscv64 or main-riscv64. I hope to reduce that to a minimum during Fedora 40, but I am not making any promises. Cheers, david > > > I have been considering not going for 2.42 for Fedora 40, but we will > > do this again one more time (hopefully it's the last time, but you > > never know). > > > > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
