On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:22:11PM +0000, Witold Baryluk wrote: > So, it does appear that /usr/src/gcc-10/gcc-10.2.0-dfsg.tar.xz from > gcc-10-source 10.2.1-6 , > doesn't have these patches applied. And the patches need to be applied > manually after unpacking. > > /usr/src/gcc-10/debian/README.source provides some information, but it > is a bit tricky: > > user@debian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8$ /usr/src/gcc-10/debian/rules patch > /usr/src/gcc-10/debian/rules:21: debian/rules.patch: No such file or directory > make: *** No rule to make target 'debian/rules.patch'. Stop. > user@debian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8 > > Try to call make -f without changing directory: > > user@debian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8$ make -f > /usr/src/gcc-10/debian/rules.patch patch > make: Nothing to be done for 'patch'. > user@debian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8$ > > But, I think this is simply because then debian/rules.patch runs > without proper variables from rules.defs applied, and $(patch_stamp) > is empty string. > > Not sure how to do all the patches, not that xtensa really need most > of them. Just the gdc-texinfo.patch
I think the issue here is that I previously attempted to apply the Debian patches, but at some point they stopped being a basic debian_patches.txt file and turned into the current Makefile fragment nightmare. And this wasn't noticed because they're not actually necessary for the lx106 target. Witold, I have no experience with D. I'm happy to enable it for the gcc-xtensa-lx106 package but I'd feel a lot more comfortable doing so if you could provide a basic sanity test to compile like the existing C test in tests/compile-empty-lx106 J. -- ... Do you believe in happy endings?