[PATCH] WIP: Bootstrap GHC on ARM systems.

  • Open
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
2 participants
  • Alex Griffin
  • Ricardo Wurmus
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Alex Griffin
Severity
normal
A
A
Alex Griffin wrote on 23 Jun 2020 03:48
[PATCH] WIP: gnu: Re-bootstrap Haskell with GHC 8.2.2 binaries.
(name . guix-patches@gnu.org)(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
iqxuLyt2f_ck_2DTkqr6jKDaFGhsrSuEQQA8frhOSY4s2mymb9NgH2csILFrwNHi0mxHMNKYFBsshhyhXiKkHUgNqKI4yrmwfKixnISeU6Q=@ajgrf.com
This patch replaces the GHC 7.8.4 bootstrap binaries with binaries of GHC 8.2.2, with an eye towards supporting ARM systems. I have not yet succeeded in bootstrapping GHC on ARM, but 8.2.2 is the first release with official binary distributions for both armv7 and aarch64.
--
Alex Griffin
A
A
Alex Griffin wrote on 27 Jun 2020 23:16
[PATCH] WIP: gnu: ghc@8.4: Support 32- and 64-bit ARM systems.
(name . 42014@debbugs.gnu.org)(address . 42014@debbugs.gnu.org)
EgF-edHWbrDu8UYMbyn1KhCeRxYHaUvcBNFI7sIlRoe3a0hZocEhHwwP0U-KvxzxK9ZoD0ueb2q72nkxbXsZXAWxNwIRoP5Fos_NmLQyaOU=@ajgrf.com
Here's the second patch. I'm making some progress on bootstrapping Haskell on ARM. Currently it builds the stage1 compiler just fine, then panics while building the stage2 compiler.

Progress is super slow, mainly because long compilation times mean I can only try 1 change per day.
--
Alex Griffin
A
A
Alex Griffin wrote on 27 Jun 2020 23:18
(No Subject)
(name . control@debbugs.gnu.org)(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
qplcKyIw7ZuKT5eItKt_qeEYWCJva-kEr9lyFfkMJCVoRnxl6Rqtog3GaqijESGTMOa6C4UByW8lfOnncE7F2izhEAbW3EzHsj4d8usrzOI=@ajgrf.com
retitle 42014 [PATCH] WIP: Bootstrap GHC on ARM systems.
R
R
Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 27 Jun 2020 23:21
Re: [bug#42014] [PATCH] WIP: gnu: Re-bootstrap Haskell with GHC 8.2.2 binaries.
(name . Alex Griffin)(address . a@ajgrf.com)(address . 42014@debbugs.gnu.org)
87h7uwp5mm.fsf@elephly.net
Alex Griffin via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (5 lines)
> This patch replaces the GHC 7.8.4 bootstrap binaries with binaries of
> GHC 8.2.2, with an eye towards supporting ARM systems. I have not yet
> succeeded in bootstrapping GHC on ARM, but 8.2.2 is the first release
> with official binary distributions for both armv7 and aarch64.

Can we do this only for armhf and aarch64? I wouldn’t like to replace
the bootstrap binary for the other architectures with a newer version
without a good reason. (We should aim to remove the binary completely,
not replace it with newer and newer versions.)

--
Ricardo
A
A
Alex Griffin wrote on 28 Jun 2020 00:09
(name . 42014@debbugs.gnu.org)(address . 42014@debbugs.gnu.org)
Hgie3ukBSXThSE012pJYWsjq42LdK2wEFuYbCEoTMXOHHNxleM-uSs1-bJnyhf-wjERaAvRhBaXukZk1H1jnqMajL9VH3vjgO-31Gd5Z5lo=@ajgrf.com
Hi Ricardo,

I actually had the same thought, and asked about it on IRC with no response. So I just did the simplest thing I could to get started. Once we have a working compiler on ARM, it should be pretty easy to restore the old x86 bootstrap path.

In particular, the complexities of having the GHC 8.4 package bootstrapped from upstream binaries on some architectures vs a previous package on others, just seemed like an unnecessary distraction until we can work through the build problems on ARM.

--
Alex Griffin

??????? Original Message ???????
On Saturday, June 27, 2020 9:21 PM, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

Toggle quote (17 lines)
>
>
> Alex Griffin via Guix-patches viaguix-patches@gnu.org writes:
>
> > This patch replaces the GHC 7.8.4 bootstrap binaries with binaries of
> > GHC 8.2.2, with an eye towards supporting ARM systems. I have not yet
> > succeeded in bootstrapping GHC on ARM, but 8.2.2 is the first release
> > with official binary distributions for both armv7 and aarch64.
>
> Can we do this only for armhf and aarch64? I wouldn’t like to replace
> the bootstrap binary for the other architectures with a newer version
> without a good reason. (We should aim to remove the binary completely,
> not replace it with newer and newer versions.)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ricardo
?