If you think a bug might affect users in the 57 release, please set the correct tracking and status flags for Release Management.

Add super-H(sh3,4) architecture support

RESOLVED FIXED in 3.12.4

Status

NSS
Build
P2
enhancement
RESOLVED FIXED
10 years ago
9 years ago

People

(Reporter: kaie, Assigned: Nelson Bolyard (seldom reads bugmail))

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 2 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

10 years ago
Created attachment 313712 [details] [diff] [review]
nss-3.11-sh-linux.patch

This patch adds support super-H(sh3,sh4) architecture.
This is forward ported patch for version nss-3.11.99.4-1
getting from http://www.sh-linux.org/ .
 
The original patch is for nss-3.11, but it can
also apply to nss-3.11.99.4-1 and compile.

Originally reported in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437676
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Attachment #313712 - Attachment is patch: true
Attachment #313712 - Attachment mime type: application/octet-stream → text/plain
(Assignee)

Comment 1

10 years ago
OK, I'll bite.  What are sh3 and sh4?
(Reporter)

Comment 2

10 years ago
I suspect it's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH
Attachment #313712 - Flags: review?(nelson)
Is this patch all that is needed?  
Or is it the first of many to come?

Who will primarily support issues with NSS on Super-H? 
Raúl ?
Kai  ?
Reed ?
Severity: normal → enhancement
To expand on the questions in the preceding comment, the NSS team's recent 
experience with WinCE has shown us that we CANNOT claim to support any new 
platforms without an NSS tinderbox for that platform.  We are at our 
capacity to run our own tinderboxes, which means that tinderboxes for new 
platforms must be run by the champions of those new platforms. 

So, the question I should have asked in comment 3 is: 

Who will supply the NSS tinderbox system, and keep it running, for Super-H?

It is also HIGHLY desirable that for each new platform, we have one or more
developers who will commit to support that platform.
(Assignee)

Updated

9 years ago
Whiteboard: Awaiting answers to reviewer's questions
Kai, Reed,
On whose behalf did you file this bug and request patch review?
Are either of you personally involved in Super-H work?
Is there someone who can answer my review questions on behalf of the 
Super-H developers?
Raúl Porcel may know somebody.

Comment 7

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #3)
> Is this patch all that is needed?  
> Or is it the first of many to come?
> 
This patch should be enough.

> Who will primarily support issues with NSS on Super-H? 
> Raúl ?
> Kai  ?
> Reed ?
This patch just adds support for SuperH(i.e, the arch is recognized), i don't think it will create issues. Kai is just a Fedora/Redhat developer with nothing to do with SuperH(Redhat/Fedora doesn't support SH). I'm a Gentoo developer in the Gentoo SH team(Gentoo supports SH). However I don't think i would be able to support issues with this, since my knowledge is very limited. Still, the patch is very minimal, I don't think it hurts, but of course thats your decision.

(In reply to comment #4)
> To expand on the questions in the preceding comment, the NSS team's recent 
> experience with WinCE has shown us that we CANNOT claim to support any new 
> platforms without an NSS tinderbox for that platform.  We are at our 
> capacity to run our own tinderboxes, which means that tinderboxes for new 
> platforms must be run by the champions of those new platforms. 
> 
> So, the question I should have asked in comment 3 is: 
> 
> Who will supply the NSS tinderbox system, and keep it running, for Super-H?
I'm not able to provide that, sorry.

> It is also HIGHLY desirable that for each new platform, we have one or more
> developers who will commit to support that platform.
As I said avobe, my knowledge on C and programming is very limited, so I don't think I could help too much.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Kai, Reed,
> On whose behalf did you file this bug and request patch review?
Kai filed the bug on behalf of CHIKAMA Masaki, which is a Fedora SH user(check the link on comment #1), he just forwarded the bug here, as explained on that comment.
As for Reed, he requested review on my behalf, since I saw this bug that needed a review.

> Are either of you personally involved in Super-H work?
As I said avobe, I'm a Gentoo developer and I'm in the Gentoo SH team.
> Is there someone who can answer my review questions on behalf of the 
> Super-H developers?
Guess I already answered those :)
Raul, with this patch applied to your own copy of the sources, are you able
to build NSS in its entirety for SuperH?  

Does superH run full blown gentoo linux?  Or is gentoo linux merely a 
cross-development environment for whatever OS is used by SuperH?
The question in comment 8 is really the crucial question.

If SuperH is just another Linux platform, running the same full-blown Linux
as runs on countless X86 laptops, X86 servers, S390 servers, any many other
CPUs, then I have no worries about it.  In that case we can apply this patch
right away.

But if SuperH is more like WinCE (Windows Mobile), being a lot like desktop
windows, but lacking in many MANY features upon which NSS and NSPR rely, 
then adding support for it is a big deal.  

So, please let us know which of these situations is most like that of SuperH.

Comment 10

9 years ago
Sorry for taking a bit to answer, but i was trying this, since the patch doesn't seem to apply anymore.

(In reply to comment #8)
> Raul, with this patch applied to your own copy of the sources, are you able
> to build NSS in its entirety for SuperH?  
Not with this one, I made another i will attach.

> 
> Does superH run full blown gentoo linux?  Or is gentoo linux merely a 
> cross-development environment for whatever OS is used by SuperH?
Yes, SuperH is able to run a full linux system, at least the sh3 and sh4{,a} processors.
Have a look:
sh4-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -o Linux2.6_sh4_sh4-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc_glibc_PTH_OPT.OBJ/mangle.o -c -O2 -fPIC -DLINUX1_2 -D_XOPEN_SOURCE -DLINUX2_1  -ansi -Wall -Werror-implicit-function-declaration -Wno-switch -pipe -DLINUX -Dlinux -D_POSIX_SOURCE -D_BSD_SOURCE -DHAVE_STRERROR -DXP_UNIX -DSHLIB_SUFFIX=\"so\" -DSHLIB_PREFIX=\"lib\" -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -D_REENTRANT -DNSS_ENABLE_ECC -DUSE_UTIL_DIRECTLY -I../../../../dist/Linux2.6_sh4_sh4-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc_glibc_PTH_OPT.OBJ/include -I../../../../dist/public/nss -I../../../../dist/private/nss -I/usr/include/nspr -I../../../../dist/Linux2.6_sh4_sh4-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc_glibc_PTH_OPT.OBJ/include/dbm -O2 -pipe mangle.c


(In reply to comment #9)
> The question in comment 8 is really the crucial question.
> 
> If SuperH is just another Linux platform, running the same full-blown Linux
> as runs on countless X86 laptops, X86 servers, S390 servers, any many other
> CPUs, then I have no worries about it.  In that case we can apply this patch
> right away.
Yes, it is :)

> 
> But if SuperH is more like WinCE (Windows Mobile), being a lot like desktop
> windows, but lacking in many MANY features upon which NSS and NSPR rely, 
> then adding support for it is a big deal.
WinCE can run on SuperH as well, but this patch is for Linux :)
> 
> So, please let us know which of these situations is most like that of SuperH.

Comment 11

9 years ago
Created attachment 375310 [details] [diff] [review]
nss.patch

However, since NSS depends on NSPR, you may want until bug 427136 is fixed to checkin this.
Attachment #313712 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #375310 - Flags: review?(nelson)
Attachment #313712 - Flags: review?(nelson)
(Assignee)

Updated

9 years ago
Assignee: nobody → nelson
Component: Libraries → Build
Priority: -- → P2
QA Contact: libraries → build
Whiteboard: Awaiting answers to reviewer's questions
Target Milestone: --- → 3.12.4
Created attachment 375344 [details] [diff] [review]
Alternative patch v1, simplify Linux.mk (checked in)

Raúl, please confirm that this patch works for you.
Christophe, please review.
Attachment #375344 - Flags: review?(christophe.ravel.bugs)

Comment 13

9 years ago
Comment on attachment 375344 [details] [diff] [review]
Alternative patch v1, simplify Linux.mk (checked in)

r+=christophe
Attachment #375344 - Flags: review?(christophe.ravel.bugs) → review+

Comment 14

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created an attachment (id=375344) [details]
> Alternative patch v1, simplify Linux.mk (untested)
> 
> Raúl, please confirm that this patch works for you.
> Christophe, please review.
It works, thanks.

Updated

9 years ago
Attachment #375310 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #375310 - Flags: review?(nelson)
Comment on attachment 375344 [details] [diff] [review]
Alternative patch v1, simplify Linux.mk (checked in)

Checking in Linux.mk; new revision: 1.36; previous revision: 1.35
Attachment #375344 - Attachment description: Alternative patch v1, simplify Linux.mk (untested) → Alternative patch v1, simplify Linux.mk (checked in)
(Assignee)

Updated

9 years ago
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.