-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 723
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added MIPS (big-endian, 32-bit) support #1859
Added MIPS (big-endian, 32-bit) support #1859
Conversation
Version change and corresponding API changes
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1859 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.00% 96.03% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 138 136 -2
Lines 20746 20761 +15
Branches 226 226
==========================================
+ Hits 19918 19938 +20
+ Misses 790 789 -1
+ Partials 38 34 -4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@briansmith @DavidHorton5339 I think the last remaining action is to squash all commits into a single commit before this can be merged, is that correct? The failing tests seem to be related to the Codecov API returning an error, not to the code changes in this PR. |
Would a squash on merge be acceptable? Git seems unable to squash the commits - perhaps because they span both main and PR branches in my fork repo and aren't all on one branch. Furthermore, I'd like to keep the 0.16-compatible version within the series of commits, in case I want to rebuild a past version of my project. |
@briansmith Happy New Year to you. |
Hello, what is the status of this please? looking to compile some package to embedded device and pretty much getting this error cargo:warning=include/ring-core/target.h:63:2: error: #error "Unknown target CPU" cargo:warning= 63 | #error "Unknown target CPU" cargo:warning= | ^~~~~ |
|
Thank you that helped! hovewer there are plenty of warnings like this: |
The only merge commits we (intentionally) do are the merges from BoringSSL. All other commits we do are rebase commits. Also, in our commit history we want every commit to be a "clean" commit that can stand on its own, since the commit history serves as the changelog for this project. Since you are able to do a new "clean" PR, I would prefer you to do so. My plan is to merge #1885 and then ask for this and all other endian-related PRs to be rebased on top of that. Could you please review PR #1885? Then I will prioritize merging your big-endian MIPS support and I will do the release immediately afterwords. |
@vavrecan @DavidHorton5339 Regarding the inlining warnings/errors, I will comment further in the issue #1866. |
I believe with a squash merge as @DavidHorton5339 proposes you get exactly that? It will combine all the commits from the pull-request as a single (new) commit on top of the branch in which it gets merged (https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/incorporating-changes-from-a-pull-request/about-pull-request-merges#squash-and-merge-your-commits). |
@brocaar I think you are right about squash merge. The only reason to avoid a squash merge that I know of is that it messes up signed commits (as the final squashed commit ends up coming from github, not from me). |
@DavidHorton5339 ah yes, you are right about signed commits :-) I'm looking forward to getting this work merged in, thanks for you work 👍 |
#1885 is merged. |
New PR raised here #1894. Closing this one. |
Now that ring has generic fallback code, we can compile it for new targets by allowing them through target.h checks.
I'd like to add MIPS support. This works well (all unit tests pass, and our application works on the target).
Unfortunately the Rust compiler recently got broken for MIPS, so version 1.71 or earlier is required.