[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#579780: closed by Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>(Bug#579780: fixed in gcc-4.4 4.4.4-2)



On 30.05.2010 13:25, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Thus spake Matthias Klose (doko@debian.org):
On 29.05.2010 19:52, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
reopen 579780
thanks

We are getting there. The disable-multilib block

|ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_TARGET_GNU_TYPE), powerpc-linux-gnu powerpc-linux-gnuspe))
|    ifeq ($(biarch64),yes)
|      CONFARGS += --disable-softfloat --enable-secureplt \
|        --enable-targets=powerpc-linux,powerpc64-linux --with-cpu=default32
|    else
|      CONFARGS += --disable-multilib
|    endif
|endif

is twice in the rules2 file.

where?

should powerpc-linux-gnuspe be configured with --enable-secureplt as well?

No. We need that  --disable-multilib switch.

why not configure with --enable-secureplt, as the powerpc port does?

debian/rules2, lines 254-261:

|ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_TARGET_GNU_TYPE), powerpc-linux-gnu powerpc-linux-gnuspe))
|    ifeq ($(biarch64),yes)
|      CONFARGS += --disable-softfloat --enable-secureplt \
|        --enable-targets=powerpc-linux,powerpc64-linux --with-cpu=default32
|    else
|      CONFARGS += --disable-multilib
|    endif
|endif

Here we get the --disable-multilib. Perfect. A few lines further down, 2333-2340:

sorry, I don't get it. the file only has 2082 lines. please recheck using the svn repository.

|ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_TARGET_GNU_TYPE), powerpc-linux-gnu))
|    ifeq ($(biarch64),yes)
|      CONFARGS += --disable-softfloat --enable-secureplt \
|        --enable-targets=powerpc-linux,powerpc64-linux --with-cpu=default32
|    else
|      CONFARGS += --disable-multilib
|    endif
|endif

The same block again without powerpc-linux-gnuspe this time. So we don't get
--disable-multilib this time. Somehow the latter block is used while passing
CONFARGS to configure.

If seen this kind duplication also in rules.patch. If you search for pr42748
you will find it twice there. Line 88 and 464. I'm not sure if this happend
intentionally or due to a missmerge.

again, I don't see this. are you working with a local/out-of-date copy?




Reply to: