Bug#893851: ffcall: Fix build for MIPS release 6
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:41 PM, S?bastien Villemot
<sebastien at debian.org> wrote:
> 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.
In fact we can patch it to use $(CC), and pass it when we call these targets,
and then we can drop the patch for the .S/.s files.
The length of patch file will be much shorter.
Anyway, we will have to patch it.
Wish my attached patch can change your mind. ;)
> 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?
The patch work may be much bigger than the solution 1.
and the patch will be much longer.
If you still prefer this solution, I will try to figure out a patch.
> If not, then I think I still prefer to incorporate the first version of your
> ??????? S?bastien Villemot
> ??????? Debian Developer
> ??????? http://sebastien.villemot.name
> ??????? http://www.debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 90024 bytes
Desc: not available