Powerful devices to test on are a different problem, of course.
Best,
John
enh
unread,
Feb 9, 2023, 10:37:31 AM2/9/23
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to andro...@googlegroups.com
nothing to announce at this time, but the NDK will likely be one of
the last pieces. it'll be hard to keep moving the ABI forwards after
that point, and rv64gc really isn't enough. there are also some quite
fundamental issues like
https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unprivileged/topic/92916241 to address.
https://github.com/google/android-riscv64/issues is an incomplete
mixture of hardware/toolchain/library/OS/developer issues that we're
filling out as we work on bringing up riscv64, just to understand the
scope of the problem.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to andro...@googlegroups.com
Um . . . the "Hardware: better atomics" issue appears to be saying that a RISC-V extension is necessary to handle modern C++ atomic operations, and that this was first officially proposed only about three months ago. Have I got that right?
Obviously getting a stable ABI is necessary before releasing RISC-V Android. But the process of getting an extension agreed and implemented by core designers is presumably going to take a year or two?