Porting Slackware LoongArch process shared(stage1-4)
 

# Slackware/LoongArch port

Hi everyone,

I'm your average Slackware user ,and just decided to start porting Slackware to LoongArch.
As this is a new architecture,I'm posting this to announce my intent and gather advice on how to best push this.


I'll first give some background material to help people gain context, then
describe my porting plan. This is going to be a bit long; apologizes for that.


## A bit of introduction on the LoongArch

LoongArch is a new RISC ISA, which is a bit like MIPS or RISC-V. There are
currently 3 variants: a reduced 32-bit version (LA32R), a standard 32-bit
version (LA32S) and a 64-bit version (LA64).

ISA documentation: https://github.com/loongson/LoongArch-Documentation
ELF ABI specification: https://github.com/loongson/LoongArc...LF-ABI-EN.adoc


Already upstream:

binutils: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binuti...c12c52d43a38a7

gcc: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/20...ch/238452.html

linux: https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/7/31/295
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux...73211e4d9390cb

glibc: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/lib...st/141193.html

qemu(system emulation and user-mode emulation): https://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/7.1

llvm: llvm/llvm-project@42fd2bf

go: https://go.dev/blog/go1.19

nodejs: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41323


## Slackware porting plans

Execute "uname -m" output on LoongArch physical machine:
$ uname -m
loongarch64


I'm planning to take ARCH=loongarch for the port; and support the LP64 ABI
first. I'd like to support both LP64 and ILP32 ABIs, but that's not a
priority.
But “ARCH=loongarch” a bit long,I'm open to suggestions.


And that's about all; the message is getting long! Your opinions are welcome,
and thanks again for following along.

Cheers~

Sorry, I don't know if this is appropriate for Slackware mailing list, so I'm Posting it here to discuss with you


Cheers~

ping

Nice if report progress, not re-up with empty post.

Select ARCH= loongarch,

Do you have any suggestions for the length of ARCH

Arch Linux uses "loongarch64" as the ARCH value for the 64bit Loongson CPU architecture.

He is now ready to become ARCH=loong64

I think "loong64" sounds a lot better than "loongarch64".
Use of the string "arch" in a CPU architecture name is quite redundant.

Since we get "x86_64" on x86 CPUs, how about "LA64" or even "LA_64" ?

I'd go with either of these as well. So that is my "vote" :)

Yes, it looks like loong64 is more appropriate than loongarch64

At first I considered using "la64 (LA64)", but "la64" and "ia64 (IA64)" are so similar that it's easy to mistake them, This is also the reason why I didn't choose LA64 later

Hi everyone, how do you feel about "64-bit: ARCH=loong64"? (your opinions are welcome)

Doesn't matter. Just check that it's consistent everywhere, e.g., also for qemu, gcc and etc.

I am good with loong64 for 64-bit, loong for 32-bit.