Skip to content

Introduce x86 to Libtock-rs#569

Merged
alevy merged 3 commits intotock:masterfrom
HMiyaziwala:master
Oct 9, 2025
Merged

Introduce x86 to Libtock-rs#569
alevy merged 3 commits intotock:masterfrom
HMiyaziwala:master

Conversation

@HMiyaziwala
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@HMiyaziwala HMiyaziwala commented Apr 3, 2025

Introduces x86 startup and syscall assembly to Libtock-rs.

Follows the existing patterns established by the ARM and RISC-V implementations.

Comment thread .cargo/config.toml

# Common settings for all embedded targets
[target.'cfg(any(target_arch = "arm", target_arch = "riscv32"))']
[target.'cfg(any(target_arch = "arm", target_arch = "riscv32", target_arch = "x86"))']
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Noting here (but not for this PR) that it's not clear this is target cfg makes any sense anymore really. If this is meant to distinguish between compiling for a target device vs compiling for the host (e.g. to run tests), this won't last. Sure, none of us are developing on riscv32, but we might develop on arm and soon enough we'll probably have an x86_64 target.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jrvanwhy ^ food for thought.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@jrvanwhy jrvanwhy Oct 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Several years ago I spent some time trying to find a better way to do this (separate host from target in Cargo configuration) and failed. Maybe I missed something, or maybe something's improved, or maybe the situation is still bad, but in any case I agree that this test is not great and won't last.

@alevy alevy added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 9, 2025
Merged via the queue into tock:master with commit 7e8fe81 Oct 9, 2025
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants