On 10/15/2014 12:17 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:56:31 -0300, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
>It happens the patch doesn't disable the ppc64architecture, it just adds
>the ppc64el architecture - so if you're in powerpc64 and little endian,
>both are defined (see there's no #else in this piece):
>
Ah, right, I must have been blind...
...
This way seems to be how mips is handled, so let's leave it as-is.
Haha, no problem. Ok.
>One thing I had in mind when writing the other patch was trying not to
>modify existing stuff, so not to break what used it before, so maybe
>that fits here too - ppc64el is also some sort of ppc64, except for
>the endianness-dependent pieces.
>
I wonder if the -mminimal-toc thing is actually needed on BE ppc64. It
seems to have been introduced by
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=303 but I don't know why.
Well, I can't say of it in CCOPTIONS, because it's a valid CC option;
but in LDOPTIONS, it's certainly wrong (it's not an emulation mode).
BTW, I just noticed sciplot FTBFS on ppc64 too, for the same reason [1].
So if we could just remove that, it seems like it'd be easier all
around.
There are legitimate reasons one may want -mminimal-toc in CCOPTIONS
(I don't understand much of it, but have seen it elsewhere).
That said, I certainly wouldn't want to break its users/packages.
It would be enough to just remove it from LDOPTIONS for ppc64/el.
If you recommend to forward and discuss this upstream, perharps to
understand how this happened, I would be willing to help/ask.
If you have the time and a quick way to track to the point where
CCOPTIONS were added to LDOPTIONS it might help. I can try/learn
later, otherwise.
What you'd prefer?
Thanks for your time and attention.
[1] http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=sciplot&suite=sid
--
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
