* add generic x86_32 support
- Add support for i386-i586.
- Add `isx86_32` predicate that can replace most uses of `isi686`.
- `isi686` is reinterpreted to mean "exactly i686 arch, and not say i585 or i386".
- This branch was used to build working i586 kernel running on i586 hardware.
* revert `isi[345]86`, remove dead code
- Remove changes to dead code in `doubles.nix` and `for-meta.nix`.
- Remove `isi[345]86` predicates since other cpu families don't have specific model predicates.
* remove i386-linux since linux not supported on that cpu
Some packages don’t work correctly with pie. Here I disable it for:
- busybox
- linux kernel
- kexectools
I also get rid of the Musl conditional for disabling pie in GCC and
Binutils. Some day we might want to enable PIE without Musl and it
will be useful to have the *just* work with our compiler and linkers.
These don’t like having -fPIE set for them. We should disable
hardening all the time, but in the interest of not changing hashes,
this only disables it for Musl (where it is now the default).
(cherry picked from commit a3a6884649354a660326acd68c1bd08ffd2dcfa2)
- respect libc’s incdir and libdir
- make non-unix systems single threaded
- set LIMITS_H_TEST to false for avr
- misc updates to support new libc’s
- use multilib with avr
For threads we want to use:
- posix on unix systems
- win32 on windows
- single on everything else
For avr:
- add library directories for avrlibc
- to disable relro and bind
- avr5 should have precedence over avr3 - otherwise gcc uses the wrong one
Only apply w/musl since while it's wrong everywhere it apparently
hasn't broken things entirely w/glibc so keep things as they were.
Patch regenerated from original so that it applies
which isn't saying much since it's simple :).
Source:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/154298/
IRC chat on #musl with Rich and others endorses this,
at least at the conceptual level of no shared library
should be using initial-exec TLS.
Fixes various uses of libgomp that previously crashed (before 1.1.20)
or encounter errors (post-1.1.20), such as pythonPackages.cython .
This isn't a MUSL thing, but just needed for cross compilation to x86.
No one had tried this when all cross compilation was to linux + glibc,
hence why no one noticed this until recently.
This has been not touched in 6 years. Let's remove it to cause less
problems when adding new cross-compiling infrastructure.
This also simplify gcc significantly.
Since years I'm not maintaining anything of the list below other
than some updates when I needed them for some reason. Other people
is doing that maintenance on my behalf so I better take me out but
for very few packages. Finally!
And there's more reverts too. The previous commmit
d838afbc9376bdadb8c690eb00b425f3eeccdf2d to gnu-config finally solves
it!
This reverts commit 3ed545ab31.
ARM ABIs now have a float field. This is used as a fallback to lessen
our use of `platform.gcc.float`. I didn't know what the MIPs convention
is so I kept using `platform.gcc.float` in that case.
To mitigate Spectre Variant 2, GCC needs to have retpoline
support (-mindirect-branch and -mfunction-return arguments on amd64
and i386).
Patches were pulled from H.J. Lu's backport branch to
4.9 (hjl/indirect/gcc-4_9-branch), available at
https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/tree/hjl/indirect/gcc-4_9-branch/master. Upstream
GCC does not apply patches to anything older than the
gcc-6-branch. H.J. Lu is the author of the upstream retpoline commits
as well.
Several Linux distributions already backported these patches to GCC 4
branches and some old kernels (3.13 for instance) have been recompiled
with these GCC patches. These kernels only allow to load kernel
modules that are compiled with the retpoline support.
References:
- Ubuntu bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.8/+bug/1749261
- Ubuntu package: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.8/4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.4Fixes#38394
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
(cherry picked from commit ba52ae5048)
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
Existing "mips64el" should be "mipsel".
This is just the barest minimum so that nixpkgs can recognize them as
systems - although required for building individual derivations onto
MIPS boards, it is not sufficient if you want to actually build nixos on
those targets
