Bug#893851: ffcall: Fix build for MIPS release 6
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 08:02:58PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:58 PM, YunQiang Su <wzssyqa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:27 PM, S?bastien Villemot
> > <sebastien at debian.org> wrote:
> >> Dear YunQiang,
> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 06:15:08PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> >>> Package: src:ffcall
> >>> Version: 2.1-1
> >>> MIPS release 6 drops some instructions: bnel/beql included.
> >>> For r6, we should use bne/beq for replace.
> >>> The patch has submit in salsa as a merge request.
> >>> https://salsa.debian.org/common-lisp-team/ffcall/merge_requests/1
> >> Thanks for your report and your patch.
> >> You may have overlooked the fact that these assembly files are actually
> >> generated by GCC from C source code (see the DEP-3 header of
> >> debian/patches/mips-fpxx.patch), so your proposed patch is not very
> >> maintainable in the long term.
> > Oh, thanks. Since then, I guess we should generate these .S files
> > when build instead of put them in the source code.
> > I will have a look at it.
> After read Makefile.devel, I think that we should call the right
> target in debian/rules.
> Should this the ideal way?
This could be a possiblity, but this is not supported by upstream. And we would
have to patch this Makefile.devel to make it work (it expects non-standard
names for GCC). So I do not really like this solution.
Another possibility, that I would prefer, is to treat mipsr6 as a different ABI
(which it actually is), adding the corresponding *.S files with a patch. Do you
think this is feasible?
If not, then I think I still prefer to incorporate the first version of your
??????? S?bastien Villemot
??????? Debian Developer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available