Bug#735488: Qt4 in arm64: wrap up of the current situation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
W dniu 23.01.2014 18:57, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer pisze:
> I've tried to summarize the current arm64 situation. The following are my
> conclusions, feel free to point if something is wrong, give more
> info/feedback, etc.
As you know from my blog post [0] Qt/AArch64 patch has long history.
0.
http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/2014/01/20/the-story-of-qtaarch64-patching/
> = Stuff under debian/
>
> - As explained in a mail before, we don't like the idea of passing
> -fpermissive as it can lead to very strange crashes. The code will need proper
> fixing.
>
> - We are building webkit with a separate source, -no-javascript-jit and the
> relevant webkit patches should be applied in src:qtwebkit. The relevant
> patches contained in the patch submitted by Wookey come from Riku Voipio and
> seems too similar to other patches we already have there, so it should not be
> a problem to apply them once we have Qt4 ready form arm64.
> - It uses linux-g++ instead of linux-g++-64. While that could be the best fit,
> it would be good to know why.
Maybe it is because linux-g++ may use '-m64' argument for GCC which
AArch64 does not support so build fails.
> = Code patches
>
> aarch64.patch:
> - *No copyright* nor license. We need this at least to be able to apply it and
> ask upstream if they see it fit. There's the chance that some code comes from
> Ubuntu people.
> - Webkit stuff: as described above.
If you need that for something:
Author: Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl> based on
gtkwebkit changes by Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@linaro.org>
License: same as upstream one
> aarch64_fix_atomic_set.patch:
> - Copyright present.
> - Possibly needs the above patch applied.
It requires aarch64.patch as it just change two lines.
> = Some extra remarks
>
> We need at least the proper copyright and license for the patches. In that way
> I'm able to apply them in the package and ping upstream wrt them.
>
> Of course, if the original author can push it to upstream's gerrit the better,
> because in case some objection arises I don't need to be in the middle as a
> (possibly noisy) proxy.
Qt4 patches are not accepted upstream. All new code has to go to Qt5 and
since 5.2.0 QAtomics stuff is using std::atomic so compiler takes care
of it and there is no code for separate architectures.
And all required patches were submitted - just one change to qtwebkit is
stuck in review.
https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-35442 is upstream bug.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=oz85
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: