[Gc] Re: Re[2]: Aarch64 GC support

Yvan Roux yvan.roux at linaro.org
Thu Nov 8 02:28:16 PST 2012


Thanks for your answers and advices.

Regards,
Yvan


On 7 November 2012 18:40, Ivan Maidanski <ivmai at mail.ru> wrote:

> Hi Yvan,
>
> 1. to submit code please fork https://github.com/ivmai/bdwgc and
> https://github.com/ivmai/libatomic_ops (master branches) and do pull
> requests when ready (I think it's easier to start with libatomic_ops)
> 2. ARM 64-bit code of libatomic_ops should go to
> https://github.com/ivmai/libatomic_ops/blob/master/src/atomic_ops/sysdeps/gcc/arm.h(similar to x86 - now it hold both 32-bit and 64-bit code)
> 3. I think it's better to add new arch (e.g., ARM64) to BDWGC (there are
> only 2-3 place there you should probably write like defined(ARM32) ||
> defined(ARM64)
>
> Regards,
> Ivan
>
>
> Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:23:26 +0000 "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm at hp.com>:
>
>    Yvan –
>
>
>
> It’s better to ask this question on the gc list.  Ivan Maidanski is now
> the primary maintainer of the collector, and reads that list, as do many
> other people who contribute patches.
>
>
>
> I hadn’t realized that the gc list archive is still  stuck.  I will have
> to look at that once I return from my current trip.  The gmane archive is
> fine, which is probably the reason I haven’t been getting a lot of
> complaints.
>
>
>
> I think this is a judgment call.  Is there much that has to be different
> in the two cases, other than macros that are directly related to word
> length?  If not, I would consider it as two variants of the same
> architecture.  If there are other major differences, I would split it out
> as a separate architecture.
>
>
>
> Libatomic_ops will have to deal with it quite differently, but that’s a
> separable issue, I think.
>
>
>
> Hans
>
>
>
> *From:* Yvan Roux [mailto:yvan.roux at linaro.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:17 AM
> *To:* Boehm, Hans
> *Subject:* Aarch64 GC support
>
>
>
> Hi Hans,
>
>
>
> I'm in the Linaro toolchain working group, and will start to work on
> adding the
>
> Aarch64 support to your GC. I don't know if the mailing list is still in
> use (as the
>
> archive hosted on HP site are stuck in March 2012) and this is why I write
> to you
>
> directly.
>
>
>
> You give a particular advice in your porting wiki page to 64-bit
> architectures which
>
> are not treated as new architectures. In the Aarch64 case, the ARM guys
> consider
>
> it as a new one and implement its support as a new target in GCC for
> instance, so
>
> do you think I can treat it as an exception like x86_64 ?
>
>
>
> The porting page seems clear but if you have some advices don't hesitate,
> I'm a bit
>
> new in the garbage collection world !
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Yvan
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://napali.hpl.hp.com/pipermail/gc/attachments/20121108/52c08304/attachment.htm


More information about the Gc mailing list