Skip to content
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

Add dependencies that support the loongarch64 architecture #2799

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

yzewei
Copy link

@yzewei yzewei commented May 25, 2024

Add dependencies that support the loongarch64 architecture
rust-lang/libc#2765

Signed-off-by: yzewei <yangzewei@loongson.cn>
Copy link
Collaborator

@utam0k utam0k left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your first contribution! Let me know why this change leads to support the loongarch64 arch?

@yzewei
Copy link
Author

yzewei commented May 27, 2024

Thanks for your first contribution! Let me know why this change leads to support the loongarch64 arch?

Thanks for your reply!
After modifying the libc version, this project can be compiled on loongarch. This is because the latest version of libc introduces support for loongarch. For details, see rust-lang/libc#2765.

@utam0k
Copy link
Collaborator

utam0k commented May 27, 2024

@yzewei I understood, but we don't have the CI platform to test the loongarch64 arch. It means, unfortunately, it's hard to maintain it for us. Do you have any good ideas?

@yzewei
Copy link
Author

yzewei commented May 28, 2024

@yzewei I understood, but we don't have the CI platform to test the loongarch64 arch. It means, unfortunately, it's hard to maintain it for us. Do you have any good ideas?

@utam0k
The cross-rs project already supports loongarch64. I think it can support loongarch64 like aarch64. What do you think? If it's ok, I will initiate the pr of adding loongarch64 corresponding to the ci test.

@utam0k
Copy link
Collaborator

utam0k commented May 28, 2024

@yzewei Thanks for your response. Who will maintain the loongarch64 arch? In other words, is it worth the maintenance? Would you use it? Sorry for the spicy question, but we consider it because our bandwidth is very limited.

@yzewei
Copy link
Author

yzewei commented May 29, 2024

@yzewei Thanks for your response. Who will maintain the loongarch64 arch? In other words, is it worth the maintenance? Would you use it? Sorry for the spicy question, but we consider it because our bandwidth is very limited.

@utam0k It doesn't matter, the reason why I submitted pr is because the alpine community is about to support loongacrh. As an open-source contributor to the loongacrh architecture, I found on aports that youki has not updated libc, resulting in the failure of the package compilation under loongarch. If you add loongarch support, I believe that with the active number of people in the alpine community, there will be a lot of people using it

@utam0k
Copy link
Collaborator

utam0k commented May 29, 2024

It doesn't matter,

Why so? Who will continue to maintain the loongarch64 arch in youki? Do you want to contribute youki to supporting it?

If you add loongarch support, I believe that with the active number of people in the alpine community, there will be a lot of people using it

Do you run containers on Alpine?

Also, we need to review our dependencies. For example opencontainers/runtime-spec#1187

@utam0k
Copy link
Collaborator

utam0k commented May 29, 2024

@yihuaf
Copy link
Collaborator

yihuaf commented Jun 1, 2024

Who will maintain the loongarch64 arch?

I share the same concern. We have limited bandwidth to support an extra architecture at the moment.

With that being said, I am unclear how dropping the explicit nix version would help with the latest libc. Since we don't have the hardware with the given architecture, we won't be able to meaningfully test this. If you can provide us with a bit more details, including how to cross compile to verify, it would be much more helpful for the review.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants