On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:25:00AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 03:38:54PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 06:05:03PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > > > I think that later I'll further extend XARCH with new variants to > > > > > support ARMv5 and Thumb2, because we have different code for this > > > > > and I continue to manually change the CFLAGS to test both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, what about further add x86_64 as the default variant for x86 (like ppc for > > > > powerpc)? and then it is able to only resereve the variables for x86_64. I have > > > > prepared a patch for this goal in our new tinyconfig patchset, it will further > > > > avoid adding the same nolibc-test-x86.config and nolibc-test-x86_64.config. > > > > > > I'm confused, x86 already defaults to x86_64, it's just that it depends > > > on the .config itself to figure whether to produce a 32- or 64-bit kernel. > > > But for example it starts qemu in 64-bit mode. Am I missing anything ? > > > > > > > In kernel side, it is, but in our nolibc-test, we have added a copy of x86_64 > > for x86: > > > > $ grep -E "_x86" tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > > IMAGE_x86_64 = arch/x86/boot/bzImage > > IMAGE_x86 = arch/x86/boot/bzImage > > CROSS_COMPILE_x86_64 ?= x86_64-linux- x86_64-linux-gnu- > > CROSS_COMPILE_x86 ?= x86_64-linux- x86_64-linux-gnu- > > DEFCONFIG_x86_64 = defconfig > > DEFCONFIG_x86 = defconfig > > QEMU_ARCH_x86_64 = x86_64 > > QEMU_ARCH_x86 = x86_64 > > QEMU_ARGS_x86_64 = -M pc -append "console=ttyS0,9600 i8042.noaux panic=-1 $(TEST:%=NOLIBC_TEST=%)" > > QEMU_ARGS_x86 = -M pc -append "console=ttyS0,9600 i8042.noaux panic=-1 $(TEST:%=NOLIBC_TEST=%)" > > > > With 'XARCH', the "_x86" copy of them can be simply replaced with such a line: > > > > # configure default variants for target kernel supported architectures > > XARCH_powerpc = ppc > > +XARCH_x86 = x86_64 > > XARCH = $(or $(XARCH_$(ARCH)),$(ARCH)) > > > > And therefore, the future nolibc-test-x86_64.config is also enough for x86. > > > > But I have seen the 'x86' exception in tools/include/nolibc/Makefile, just a > > confirm on if this replacement is ok. > > Ah I thought you meant the opposite, i.e. that ppc did map to powerpc > that I was not seeing anywhere else. Yes we can probably do that and > remove the x86-specific lines later. by "later" I mean "further" in the file. Willy
