Re: Bug#780640: gcc-5: merge gnat back to gcc
On 03/29/2015 04:54 PM, YunQiang Su wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:10 PM, YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
>>> some comments:
>>>
>>> - please add appropriate changelog entries
>>
>> Added
>>
>> * Rewrite patches for libgnat build, and add mips64el support.
YunQiang,
spent some time working on your patch. I replied on general stuff at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2015/03/msg00142.html
the things that were not mentioned in this report:
- dropping of patches without any mentioning and without any
effort for forward porting these patches.
- how your patches were tested. At least I found that
building libgnatprj without -DIN_GCC results in a build error.
- please state how you built an existing package with your patch.
It may build on some mips64 configuration, but please check
that a native amd64 build still works.
- updated patches in this report add a gnat cross base package,
again not mentioned, and not part of "merge gnat back to gcc".
>> * Use the same scheme as gcc etc for gnat commands:
>> aka gnat-5 -> <triplet>-gnat-5.
pretty please send a separate patch, and explain why this would work. At least
afaicr Ludovic didn't do that, because the tools are calling each self with
fixed names.
>>> - don't rely on autogen during the build. I was just
>>> happy to get rid off it. I think it's fine
>>> to keep the auto generated toplevel Makefile.
>>> It doesn't change that often.
>>
>> OK, add a patch named: src-Makefile-autogen.diff
No. just add it to the single patches. Now done.
>>> I think it makes sense to build gnat out of the gcc-5 source package. I talked
>>> to Ludovic about this at Fosdem, and he didn't have major concerns. And
>>> probably he'll update Ada only once during the next release cycle, and that
>>> likely will be for GCC 6.
>>
>> I switch gnat off in gcc by default.
>> So we can still use gnat-5 packages.
>> I tested it on amd64, it build well.
>>
>
> I saw you merged gnat back to gcc, then why are you still use the old flavor?
> aka, the command is gnat not gnat-5.
I don't understand your last comment. Please elaborate.
> This way will make cross build impossible.
> Any consideration?
yes, any patch which makes a native build fail to build is broken. Please check
your patches with a native build (which is known to work) first.
I'm closing this issue, please open separate issues for any remaining issues.
Matthias
Reply to: