[K42-discussion] What is the correct version of gcc, glibc, binutils, linux and linuxthreads required for a successful K42 build ?

[Elvis John Dowson]

Hi Orran,

                 Oh, I get the picture now. When you mention the use of
virtual function tables and IDL, am I correct in guess that you have
attempted to create a sort of fast, binary level specification, similar to
COM and CORBA, to facilitate RPC like calls for remote method invocation,
within the operating system environment and achieve location transparency
for all the software components in the system ? 

 

And for some reason, the glue logic is not portable across compiler versions
? 

 

>From your answer, I can see what you mean by me, digging into a pit !! :-)
. Actually, I tried the first build script but it failed, so that's when I
attempted to try other gcc,glibc and kernel combinations. I just didn't know
which one would work. 

 

Now, I'll take your word for it and download the binary only version of the
toolchain and attempt to build the K42 sources.

 

Here is my overall plan and some of the tasks I would like to complete
within a time frame of one year :

 

1.	To develop a CBE UML Profile for the IBM Cell Broadband Processor,
to support full automatic code generation from real-time UML models, with
support for target based animation and debugging of the UML models from the
host. I should have some preliminary documents and example ready before the
end of February 2006. 
2.	Porting of the K42 OS to the CBE platform, first onto the simulator,
and then running it on an actual CBE Blade Platform, when it becomes
available.
3.	Adapting the CBE UML Profile and enhancing it to support K42 OS
specific optimizations, to primarily facilitate dynamic addition/management
of CBE processing units, for large computational clusters. 

 

I haven't estimated the effort for points 2 & 3, but I will spend some time
with the K42 sources, after I complete the first step. I need to be sure, if
I can do the work for points 2 and 3, and if so, the effort involved, etc,
and possibly get some more people to join in the effort, to cut down the
time required to complete steps 2 and 3.

 

So, to summarize, I will attempt to use the binary versions of the K42
toolchain and then attempt a K42 OS build and then visit tasks 2 & 3, by the
end of February 2006, to determine if its something that I should be getting
into, based on the effort, resource availability in terms of people actually
willing to participate in this effort and the final schedule assessment.

 

Best regards,

 

Elvis John Dowson

 

  _____  

From: Orran Y Krieger [mailto:okrieg at us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:40 PM
To: Elvis John Dowson
Cc: 'Andrew Baumann'; 'Jimi Xenidis'; k42-discussion at ozlabs.org;
k42-discussion-bounces at ozlabs.org; 'Andrew Baumann'; 'Jimi Xenidis';
k42-discussion at ozlabs.org; k42-discussion-bounces at ozlabs.org
Subject: RE: [K42-discussion] What is the correct version of gcc, glibc,
binutils, linux and linuxthreads required for a successful K42 build ?

 


Elvis, 

There is perhaps some confusion here.  K42 is intimate with a particular
toolchain version (e.g., we know how virtual function tables are laid out
for our stub compiler), and that toolchain has to be built a specific way to
be able to build K42.   Its a pretty major project to build the toolchain,
its got nothing whatsoever to do with building the K42 kernel, and most
people that want to hack on K42 want to know nothing about building the
toolchain.  Once you have the toolchain, building K42 is relatively
straightforward.   We have tried to do a reasonable job of documenting how
to build K42 itself.   If you want to work/play on the OS, really the best
bet today is to just use the binary version of the toolchain that is
distributed at UNM and Toronto.   If you want to build your own version...
its digging into a big pit.   

Unfortunately, the toolchain problem is agrevated by the fact that we are
locked into an older version of the toolchain.  With more recent vesions the
kind of scripts that the Cell guys use would work for us as well.  Someone
at the university of new mexico agreed a while back to work on upgrading us
to a new version of the toolchain, but have not heard anything about that
recently?  Any progress on this guys? 

         -- Orran 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/k42-discussion/attachments/20051220/c5adccc1/attachment.htm