Re: Please reenable GCJ on mips
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode (firstname.lastname@example.org) [051007 04:42]:
> > Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > If
> > > you think, that availability of compilers on some architectures
> > > should be release criterium, please bring that up with the release
> > > team first.
> > That's not at all what I think.
> > I think that if there are known binutils bugs for your architecture, which
> > supposedly prevent the build of multiple packages --
> > /either/ forwarding them upstream
> > /or/ fixing them if they're Debian-specific
> > /or/ closing them if they're bogus
> > within a reasonable amount of time (less than a year)
> > should be a requirement for a port to be considered.
> Actually, there is one criterion missing: Does this bug really hurt us
> bad (enough)? And my current answer to this is no, but of course, you
> might want to persuade me. :)
> My current understanding of this bug is that mips Inc. is working on a
> new abi that will fix this (and other) issues way better than the
> current xgot-vs-multigot-way allows us to do. There was some discussion
> between Thiemo, someone from mips, Matthias Klose (doko) and me on the
> porters meeting in Oldenburg, and I'm quite optimistic that it's on
> a good way. However, making such a massive change is not something that
> can be done very fast.
Actually, the new ABI isn't more than a plan by now, and it's scope
and eventual implementation isn't decided upon yet. The bug we discuss
here may go away with an ABI change, but it surely is fixable in the
current one as well.