On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:15:45PM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote:

Hi, Yury

On 1:09 2016/1/30, Yury Norov wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:59:33PM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 1:22 2016/1/15, Yury Norov wrote:

quoted

This is still RFC because we have no glibc yet, that correspnds new ABI
introduced here. And so we cannot run tests. LP64 and AARCH32 tests show
no regression though.

Hi,

Glad to see this version. I hope I could test it. Where could I find the
corresponding glibc? I could not find it in
http://github.com/norov/glibc.git. Or is there a plan to do it?

Besides compat wrappers discussed in these series, is there any other
blockers for upstream? I would suppose everyone is intestested in the
result of LTP...

Regards

Bamvor

Hi, Bamvor,

Just to order all commits, I created new ILP32 branch at [1], that
based on 4.4 kernel + [2] + [3]. There's no new glibc suitable for
rfc5. But I started with it, and I hope there will be progress soon.

Cool:)

quoted

You cannot run LTP as there are some syscalls that are called during
dynamic loading that fail, but you can try to build your test statically
agaginst current glibc, and there's a big chance it will work.
I have a set of 'hello-worlds' working that way.

Currrently, I got 300+ in ltplite with you glibc[1]. I will try static link
later.

quoted

If you have some specific test that you cannot run, you can send it to
me, and I will take a look on it.

Sure, I am reading the test results. Hope we could fix these failure
together.

Regards

Bamvor

[1] https://github.com/norov/glibc/tree/thunderx-ilp32-32time_toff_t

quoted

Yury

[1] https://github.com/norov/linux/tree/rfc5
[2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2116021
[3] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2134747

quoted

quoted

 v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/3/704
 v4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/13/691
 v5: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/29/911

Hi Bamvor, everybody,

I have new glibc that follows new ABI:
https://github.com/norov/glibc/tree/new-api

It's very draft and dirty, but you can try it with RFC5.
My fail list for ltplite looks like this:
pipeio_4                       FAIL       11   
abort01                        FAIL       2    
clone02                        FAIL       4    
kill10                         FAIL       2    
kill11                         FAIL       2    
lstat01A                       FAIL       1    
lstat02                        FAIL       1    
mmap16                         FAIL       6    
nanosleep03                    FAIL       1    
nftw01                         FAIL       1    
nftw6401                       FAIL       1    
open12                         FAIL       2    
pathconf01                     FAIL       1    
pipe07                         FAIL       2    
profil01                       FAIL       11   
readdir01                      FAIL       1    
readlink01A                    FAIL       1    
rename11                       FAIL       2    
rmdir02                        FAIL       2    
sigaltstack01                  FAIL       1    
sigaltstack02                  FAIL       1    
stat03                         FAIL       1    
stat04                         FAIL       1    
stat06                         FAIL       1    
umount2_01                     FAIL       2    
umount2_02                     FAIL       2    
umount2_03                     FAIL       2    
utime06                        FAIL       2    
writev01                       FAIL       1    
mtest06                        FAIL       11   
rwtest01                       FAIL       2    
rwtest02                       FAIL       2    
rwtest03                       FAIL       2    
rwtest04                       FAIL       2    
rwtest05                       FAIL       2

Float tests are exluded, but also fail. Totally, ~40 of 787 tests
fail.

Yury