doc: add riscv64 info into platform list

[luyahan]

No description provided.

[Trott]

@nodejs/build

[Trott]

It's not clear to me that there's an ordering beyond some clustering in the list, but if there is ordering, it would be great if someone can confirm that this entry is in the right place.

[rvagg]

I'm not sure we can add this, we don't have it in our CI in any form yet and I think @sxa is the only member of the team that's even attempted to toy with this. Having it in this list suggests some level of support but I don't think we're in a position to offer anything yet. Perhaps if we can pull together a functional @nodejs/platform-risc this might make sense but I'm not sure if we want to be signalling anything relating to "support" re risc yet.

So I'm a soft -1 on this.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

[sxa]

Having it in this list suggests some level of support

I suppose the question would be whether the other platforms we have as experimental (armv6, xLinux 32-bit) are in the same state now. I'd suggest at least holding off merging until we get get an unofficial build in place (I've got one running elsewhere on a regular basis - I just need to get it integrated into the normal node process)

[kapouer]

FYI just built nodejs 16.14.2 for debian on riscv64: all message parallel sequential tests pass except test-perf-hooks-histogram.js.
the log is here.

[mhdawson]

Description of Experimental - Experimental: May not compile or test suite may not pass. The core team does not create releases for these platforms. Test failures on experimental platforms do not block releases. Contributions to improve support for these platforms are welcome.

We could probably come up with a better name than Experimental, but it does seem to imply that a less than complete implementation is possible.

Having said that would also be happy if we wait for an unofficial build is in place so that we have confidence that it is far enough along that adding it makes sense.

[richardlau]

Having said that would also be happy if we wait for an unofficial build is in place so that we have confidence that it is far enough along that adding it makes sense.

FWIW @sxa opened nodejs/unofficial-builds#54 a week ago.

[sxa]

Currently blocked on nodejs/unofficial-builds#55

[olof-nord]

Currently blocked on nodejs/unofficial-builds#55

With the linked issue closed in May this year, I understand this PR can be merged?
Ping @sxa as you linked the closed issue.

[aduh95]

@nodejs/build what's the status here? If we still want to merge this, it should be rebased to fix the conflicts.

[targos]

I agree with @rvagg that without a @nodejs/platform-riscv team, this doesn't make much sense. We need someone to provide the experimental support.

[sxa]

I agree with @rvagg that without a @nodejs/platform-riscv team, this doesn't make much sense. We need someone to provide the experimental support.

I guess that's down to whether @luyahan is willing to provide such support going forward. I'd certainly want to be part of such a platform team if it exists but can't commit to supporting it on an ongoing basis ...

For what it's worth I do have https://ci.nodejs.org/job/sxa-rvnodetest which is running a regular build+test cycle on the platform on the v21 codebase, but there are test case failures in there so it's not ready for a push to integrate into the main node-test-commit set of platforms (unless it was made optional like Windows/arm was for a while)