On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Sébastien Villemot <sebast...@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 <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. >
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. ;) > 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? The patch work may be much bigger than the solution 1. and the patch will be much longer. If you still prefer this solution, I will try to figure out a patch. > > 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 -- YunQiang Su
xxx.diff
Description: Binary data
