Removal of hppa support

Removal of hppa support

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi Andy!

I noticed that you recently purged hppa support from guile [1].

I would like to protest this move as it was made without coordination
with the hppa porters in Debian. While Debian does not have hppa as a
release architecture, it's still a fully maintained port with multiple
developers working on it and also a userbase.

So, unless there is a good reason for hppa to be removed, I would like
to ask for hppa support to be reinstated in guile. If there are any issues
that need to be worked on, please let us know. We are also regularly
building guile on hppa [2, 3].

Thanks,
Adrian

> [1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=ced3c42deeb853d508b2ebc3cd915d494aca50d0
> [2] https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=guile-2.2&arch=hppa
> [3] https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=guile-2.0&arch=hppa

Re: Removal of hppa support

[John David Anglin]

On 2020-01-25 2:32 p.m., John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I would like to protest this move as it was made without coordination
> with the hppa porters in Debian. While Debian does not have hppa as a
> release architecture, it's still a fully maintained port with multiple
> developers working on it and also a userbase.
I'll second that.  As can be seen from Adrian's links, there are no major issues in building
guile on hppa linux:

I also build it from time to time on hpux11.11.

Regards,
Dave Anglin

Re: Removal of hppa support

[Helge Deller]

On 25.01.20 20:48, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2020-01-25 2:32 p.m., John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> I would like to protest this move as it was made without coordination
>> with the hppa porters in Debian. While Debian does not have hppa as a
>> release architecture, it's still a fully maintained port with multiple
>> developers working on it and also a userbase.

> I'll second that. 

Me too!
Andy, please revert your change.
hppa is in debian-ports and has everything up and running as debian architecture:
https://monitor.jrtc27.com/

Thanks,
Helge

Re: Removal of hppa support

[William ML Leslie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 384 bytes --]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 8:20 am John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, <
glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hi Andy!
>
> I noticed that you recently purged hppa support from guile [1].
>

This change does not remove hppa support from guile, only support for the
jit.

As an ia64 user, i'm a bit sad that we lost jit too - but i don't run any
performance-sensitive guile jobs on that system.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 935 bytes --]

Re: Removal of hppa support

[William ML Leslie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 678 bytes --]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 4:46 pm William ML Leslie, <
william.leslie.ttg@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 8:20 am John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, <
> glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy!
>>
>> I noticed that you recently purged hppa support from guile [1].
>>
>
> This change does not remove hppa support from guile, only support for the
> jit.
>
> As an ia64 user, i'm a bit sad that we lost jit too - but i don't run any
> performance-sensitive guile jobs on that system.
>


Maybe /lost/ is the wrong word. We won't be benefitting from the work the
lightning team have done in supporting hacker-friendly architectures in
guile 3. This jit is completely new.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1792 bytes --]

Re: Removal of hppa support

[Andy Wingo]

Hi :)

On Sun 26 Jan 2020 07:19, William ML Leslie <william.leslie.ttg@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 4:46 pm William ML Leslie, <william.leslie.ttg@gmail.com> wrote:
>  On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 8:20 am John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>  > I noticed that you recently purged hppa support from guile [1].
>
>  This change does not remove hppa support from guile, only support for
>  the jit.
>
>  As an ia64 user, i'm a bit sad that we lost jit too - but i don't run
>  any performance-sensitive guile jobs on that system.
>
> Maybe /lost/ is the wrong word. We won't be benefitting from the work
> the lightning team have done in supporting hacker-friendly
> architectures in guile 3. This jit is completely new.

William is correct.  HPPA support is not gone from Guile; and indeed
it's good to hear from you :)  I wasn't sure there were any IA64 users
remaining.

Initially in Guile I planned to use GNU Lightning, in part because of
its great platform support.  However it turned out to not be the right
thing, and reluctantly I ended up doing something that was more like a
rewrite than a refactor.  In that context I personally don't have the
budget to write the IA64 backend.  So, Guile 3 still runs on IA64, just
without JIT support.

If someone would like to write an IA64 backend for Lightening, I would
be happy to accept it :)  The beginnings of one are there in the git
history.

Andy

Re: Removal of hppa support

[Stefan Monnier]

> Initially in Guile I planned to use GNU Lightning, in part because of
> its great platform support.  However it turned out to not be the right
> thing, and reluctantly I ended up doing something that was more like a
> rewrite than a refactor.
[...]
> If someone would like to write an IA64 backend for Lightening, I would

So, do I understand correctly that Light*e*ning is the name you chose
for Guile's rewrite of GNU Lightning?

Do you think it could be useful separately from Guile?


        Stefan

Re: Removal of hppa support

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 728 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:30:15PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Initially in Guile I planned to use GNU Lightning, in part because of
> > its great platform support.  However it turned out to not be the right
> > thing, and reluctantly I ended up doing something that was more like a
> > rewrite than a refactor.
> [...]
> > If someone would like to write an IA64 backend for Lightening, I would
> 
> So, do I understand correctly that Light*e*ning is the name you chose
> for Guile's rewrite of GNU Lightning?
> 
> Do you think it could be useful separately from Guile?

There's some infornmative text here:

https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/05/24/lightening-run-time-code-generation

Cheers
-- tomás

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Removal of hppa support

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi!

On 1/27/20 4:46 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> William is correct.  HPPA support is not gone from Guile; and indeed
> it's good to hear from you :)  I wasn't sure there were any IA64 users
> remaining.

It fails to build from source on Debian hppa, however:

> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=guile-3.0&arch=hppa&ver=3.0.0%2B1-1&stamp=1580702308&raw=0

continuations.c: In function 'scm_dynthrow':
continuations.c:326:5: error: too few arguments to function 'grow_stack'
  326 |     grow_stack (cont);
      |     ^~~~~~~~~~
continuations.c:276:1: note: declared here
  276 | grow_stack (SCM cont, uint8_t *mra)
      | ^~~~~~~~~~

I'm currently working on a patch.

> Initially in Guile I planned to use GNU Lightning, in part because of
> its great platform support.  However it turned out to not be the right
> thing, and reluctantly I ended up doing something that was more like a
> rewrite than a refactor.  In that context I personally don't have the
> budget to write the IA64 backend.  So, Guile 3 still runs on IA64, just
> without JIT support.

It also fails on ia64 at the moment:

> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=guile-3.0&arch=ia64&ver=3.0.0%2B1-1&stamp=1580702151&raw=0

continuations.c:146:23: error: missing binary operator before token "or"
  146 | # if !(defined __ia64 or defined __ia64__)
      |                       ^~

I fixed the preprocessor conditional, but then I'm running into another
issue:

continuations.c: In function 'capture_auxiliary_stack':
continuations.c:152:7: warning: implicit declaration of function 'getcontext' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  152 |   if (getcontext (&ctx) != 0)
      |       ^~~~~~~~~~
continuations.c:158:21: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'ucontext_t' {aka 'struct ucontext_t'})
  158 |   top = (char *) ctx->uc_mcontext.sc_ar_bsp;
      |                     ^~
continuations.c:167:26: error: 'scm_thread' {aka 'struct scm_thread'} has no member named 'auxiliary_stack_base'
  167 |     top - (char *) thread->auxiliary_stack_base;
      |                          ^~
continuations.c:171:48: error: 'scm_thread' {aka 'struct scm_thread'} has no member named 'auxiliary_stack_base'
  171 |   memcpy (continuation->auxiliary_stack, thread->auxiliary_stack_base,
      |                                                ^~
continuations.c: In function 'restore_auxiliary_stack':
continuations.c:180:17: error: 'scm_thread' {aka 'struct scm_thread'} has no member named 'auxiliary_stack_base'
  180 |   memcpy (thread->auxiliary_stack_base, continuation->auxiliary_stack,
      |                 ^~

Working on a patch here as well.

> If someone would like to write an IA64 backend for Lightening, I would
> be happy to accept it :)  The beginnings of one are there in the git
> history.

Ok. I assume that applies to alpha, hppa, m68k, powerpc*, riscv*, sparc* as well.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Removal of hppa support

[Andy Wingo]

Greets,

On Tue 04 Feb 2020 12:02, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:

> On 1/27/20 4:46 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> William is correct.  HPPA support is not gone from Guile; and indeed
>> it's good to hear from you :)  I wasn't sure there were any IA64 users
>> remaining.
>
> It fails to build from source on Debian hppa, however:

Thanks for these reports and apologies for the breakages.  Looking
forward to the patches.

> I fixed the preprocessor conditional, but then I'm running into another
> issue:
>
> continuations.c: In function 'capture_auxiliary_stack':
> continuations.c:152:7: warning: implicit declaration of function 'getcontext' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

Probably a missing include for ucontext.h.

>> If someone would like to write an IA64 backend for Lightening, I would
>> be happy to accept it :)  The beginnings of one are there in the git
>> history.
>
> Ok. I assume that applies to alpha, hppa, m68k, powerpc*, riscv*, sparc* as well.

Yes indeed!

Andy

Re: Removal of hppa support

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi!

On 2/4/20 12:23 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> On 1/27/20 4:46 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>> William is correct.  HPPA support is not gone from Guile; and indeed
>>> it's good to hear from you :)  I wasn't sure there were any IA64 users
>>> remaining.
>>
>> It fails to build from source on Debian hppa, however:
> 
> Thanks for these reports and apologies for the breakages.  Looking
> forward to the patches.

Sure. Just sent the one for hppa.

>> I fixed the preprocessor conditional, but then I'm running into another
>> issue:
>>
>> continuations.c: In function 'capture_auxiliary_stack':
>> continuations.c:152:7: warning: implicit declaration of function 'getcontext' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> 
> Probably a missing include for ucontext.h.

It's there:

#if SCM_HAVE_AUXILIARY_STACK
#include <ucontext.h>
#endif

There are some more issues. I wills send a patch for ia64 in a bit.

Adrian

Re: Removal of hppa support

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi!

On 1/26/20 6:46 AM, William ML Leslie wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 8:20 am John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de <mailto:glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Andy!
> 
>     I noticed that you recently purged hppa support from guile [1].
> 
> 
> This change does not remove hppa support from guile, only support for the jit.

I'm aware of this. But unless the code was unmaintainable or broken, I don't see
a reason for removing it.

Debian (and NetBSD) still support hppa perfectly fine so the code is actually
being compiled, used and test-run. And guile has been building fine on Debian/hppa.

Access to hppa machines for testing and bug fixing is also available through Debian.

> As an ia64 user, i'm a bit sad that we lost jit too - but i don't run any
> performance-sensitive guile jobs on that system.

Are you using Debian's ia64 port? We recently resurrected it ;).

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Removal of hppa support

[William ML Leslie]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 20:51, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 1/26/20 6:46 AM, William ML Leslie wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 8:20 am John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de <mailto:glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Andy!
> >
> >     I noticed that you recently purged hppa support from guile [1].
> >
> >
> > This change does not remove hppa support from guile, only support for the jit.
>
> I'm aware of this. But unless the code was unmaintainable or broken, I don't see
> a reason for removing it.
>

The only thing Wingo wrote publicly about this seems to be:

> I ported some of the existing GNU Lightning backends over to Lightening... I deleted the backends for Itanium, HPPA, Alpha, and SPARC; they have no Debian ports and there is no situation in which I can afford to do QA on them. [0]

I haven't pushed to see what conditions would need to change to make
JIT support on these architectures desirable for the core developers.
Thoughts, Andy? Ludo?

> Debian (and NetBSD) still support hppa perfectly fine so the code is actually
> being compiled, used and test-run. And guile has been building fine on Debian/hppa.
>
> Access to hppa machines for testing and bug fixing is also available through Debian.
>
> > As an ia64 user, i'm a bit sad that we lost jit too - but i don't run any
> > performance-sensitive guile jobs on that system.
>
> Are you using Debian's ia64 port? We recently resurrected it ;).
>

Yes I am - I saw that.  Thank you for all your hard work on it!

I was recently trying to figure out the issue with the vim-tiny tests
and I broke my ssh access: I failed to realise why setting up a chroot
was so important when you only have access to Sid.  It is quite a bit
of work to get iLO access in my office so I've been putting it off
until I have a couple of days clear to look into it, and I've been
working on replacing the ancient tech needed to speak to early iLO
cards (a java6 browser plugin and old SSL with no hostname
verification).

It's not my first debian-ports fun either - I ran a hurd-i386 box for
over a decade without issue.

[0] http://wingolog.org/archives/2019/05/24/lightening-run-time-code-generation

-- 
William Leslie

Notice:
Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered
under copyright law.  You absolutely MAY reproduce any part of it in
accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this
in.  Any attempt to DENY YOU THOSE RIGHTS would be illegal without
prior contractual agreement.

Re: Removal of hppa support

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 1/26/20 1:21 PM, William ML Leslie wrote:
> The only thing Wingo wrote publicly about this seems to be:
> 
>> I ported some of the existing GNU Lightning backends over to Lightening... I deleted the backends for Itanium, HPPA, Alpha, and SPARC; they have no Debian ports and there is no situation in which I can afford to do QA on them. [0]
> 
> I haven't pushed to see what conditions would need to change to make
> JIT support on these architectures desirable for the core developers.
> Thoughts, Andy? Ludo?

They have no Debian ports?

> https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/2019-07-16/

> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=guile-2.2&suite=sid

It would have been nice if anyone from upstream had reached out to us.

The lack of communication is rather disappointing.

>> Debian (and NetBSD) still support hppa perfectly fine so the code is actually
>> being compiled, used and test-run. And guile has been building fine on Debian/hppa.
>>
>> Access to hppa machines for testing and bug fixing is also available through Debian.
>>
>>> As an ia64 user, i'm a bit sad that we lost jit too - but i don't run any
>>> performance-sensitive guile jobs on that system.
>>
>> Are you using Debian's ia64 port? We recently resurrected it ;).
>>
> 
> Yes I am - I saw that.  Thank you for all your hard work on it!

You're welcome. We're always looking for more contributors.

> I was recently trying to figure out the issue with the vim-tiny tests
> and I broke my ssh access: I failed to realise why setting up a chroot
> was so important when you only have access to Sid.  It is quite a bit
> of work to get iLO access in my office so I've been putting it off
> until I have a couple of days clear to look into it, and I've been
> working on replacing the ancient tech needed to speak to early iLO
> cards (a java6 browser plugin and old SSL with no hostname
> verification).

Yeah. The vim testsuite issue affects multiple architectures.

> It's not my first debian-ports fun either - I ran a hurd-i386 box for
> over a decade without issue.

Nice.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Removal of hppa support

[John David Anglin]

On 2020-01-26 8:34 a.m., John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 1/26/20 1:21 PM, William ML Leslie wrote:
>> The only thing Wingo wrote publicly about this seems to be:
>>
>>> I ported some of the existing GNU Lightning backends over to Lightening... I deleted the backends for Itanium, HPPA, Alpha, and SPARC; they have no Debian ports and there is no situation in which I can afford to do QA on them. [0]
There is a porter box for hppa and it's free!

I love this page:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=hppa&suite=sid

Dave