Bug#893851: ffcall: Fix build for MIPS release 6
Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> 于2021年8月27日周五 上午1:57写道：
>
> 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.
>
The upstream had some big restruct work and I think that the current source
can work with MIPS r6 out of box now.
> Best regards,
>
> --
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name
> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
>
--
YunQiang Su
Reply to: