On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 08:02:58PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:58 PM, YunQiang Su <wzss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Sébastien Villemot > > <sebast...@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. 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? If not, then I think I still prefer to incorporate the first version of your patch. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
