Dear YunQiang, Le mercredi 28 mars 2018 à 10:49 +0200, Sébastien Villemot a écrit : > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 09:38:04PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Sébastien Villemot > > <sebastien@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@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Sébastien Villemot > > > > > <sebastien@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. ;) > > I really don't like the kludge for mips in debian/rules. > > I think that all things considered I prefer your very first patch, which had > the advantage of being very small. I just wanted to inform you that, with the upload of ffcall 2.4, I had to drop your MIPS r6, because it no longer applies, and I don’t know how to refresh it. I think this shows that the best solution for MIPS r6 support would rather be to work directly with upstream, rather than applying a Debian-specific patch. Best regards, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part