On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Philipp Wagner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 22.02.2018 um 16:45 schrieb Arnd Bergmann: >> While building the cross-toolchains, I noticed that overall, we can build almost >> all linux target architectures with upstream binutils and gcc these days, >> however there are still some exceptions, and I'd like to find out if anyone >> has objections to removing the ones that do not have upstream support. >> This are the four architectures I found: >> [...] >> * OpenRISC is a RISC architecture with a free license and an >> active community. It seems to have lost a bit of steam after RISC-V >> is rapidly taking over that niche, but there are chips out there and >> the design isn't going away. Listing it here for completeness only >> because there is no upstream gcc port yet, but this will hopefully >> change in the future based on >> https://lists.librecores.org/pipermail/openrisc/2018-January/000958.html >> and I had no problems locating the gcc-7.x tree for building my >> toolchains. The port is actively being maintained. > > It's mostly mentioned in the mailing list thread you linked to, but just > for completeness in this thread: > > The OpenRISC GCC port is maintained and regularly updated to newer GCC > versions. It is not, however, upstreamed to the FSF due to a single > missing FSF copyright assignment from a developer who has written large > parts of the initial port. All code which has copyright assignments in > place (binutils, GDB, etc.) has been upstreamed lately. > > For GCC, Stafford Horne is actively working on rewriting the parts which > we don't have the FSF copyright assignment for (and unless something > very surprising happens, won't get). [If anyone wants to help, there's > GSoC project for it as well: > https://fossi-foundation.org/gsoc18-ideas#openrisc-gcc-port] > > So I'd be very sad if the openrisc port gets dropped from Linux upstream. Yes, definitely. What I was really trying to say here is I consider openrisc an obvious exception to the 'no more ports without upstream gcc' rule because of the above. On a related note, has anyone successfully built an openrisc kernel with llvm/clang? As we discussed for arch/hexagon/, that architecture is unlikely to ever get an upstream gcc port, but like openrisc does have an upstream llvm port and they actually use that. I know that x86 and arm64 mostly work with llvm, arm32 works in some of the more common configurations at least (not big-endian or older CPUs though) and some others probably work as well. I have already build both gcc-5.5 and gcc-7.3 for openrisc and uploaded those to https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/, but if llvm works as well, that could be one more reason to try to build a working set of clang based cross toolchains. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-metag" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
