[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [OpenRISC] Removing architectures without upstream gcc support
On 02/26/2018 09:00 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Philipp Wagner
> <> 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
>>> 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:
>> 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.

Actually the LLVM port of or1k isn't upstream either. CCing whitequark,
who might know more about the (non-)plans of getting the backend
upstream. I also don't know of anyone having tried to build the openrisc
kernel with LLVM, would certainly be an interesting thing to try.

> 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
>, but if llvm works as
> well, that could be one more reason to try to build a working set of
> clang based cross toolchains.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-26 13:36    [W:0.084 / U:1.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site