On 2013-12-14, Brian Drummond wrote: > I would strongly advise that either you take the Sourceforge > repository, or if you must keep gna.org, that you take the entire set > of recent patches from Sourceforge as a single step rather than > selecting a subset of them. Otherwise there is a danger of building > an inconsistent version and reintroducing incompatibilities.
It is clear that you are doing good and sorely needed work, and Sourceforge is the place where things are happening right now. However, Debian packages are not normally supposed to track development; they are supposed to contain stable, released software. So I will have to figure out a way to keep the Debian package on the stable branch of GHDL, without going all the way back to 0.29. > > * I have completely dropped which was required > > under gcc-4.7 to avoid an internal compiler error on 64 bit. It > > seems that this patch is no longer needed with gcc-4.8. Brian, do > > you agree? > > On which repository is "changeset ff92a40ea4d9" a searchable item? I > don't recognise the number... Sorry. It is a changeset in my personal clone of your mercurial repository. I was assuming these numbers remain valid accross clones, but apparently they don't. > If you mean this change set > https://sourceforge.net/p/ghdl-updates/code/ci/26f177817bffcc140609f5885614f2edb55efb59/ > I believe the underlying issue IS still there in the compiler; however > that changeset is corrected by later changes to ortho_lang.c, > specifically > https://sourceforge.net/p/ghdl-updates/code/ci/655b2faf0dc82716e3a13be4d4415a25dc4212c1/ > so that both 32 and 64 bit builds work. Yes, I mean that patch. Even if I leave the patch out completely, I can not reproduce the internal compiler error that we used to have with GCC 4.7. That's why I think the problem may not exist anymore in GCC 4.8. > > * With regard to the Start_Choice function, I'm still using your > > original patch which adds a Value parameter to the function. > > Anyway I don't want gcc to distort ghdl's architecture unless it's > critically important to do so, and the static variable is in line with > the way other aspects of the gcc interface have been handled. Ok, clear. I will adopt your version then. It is certainly not my intention to experiment with my own personal patches in the Debian package. > > * There is an "OSVVM" patch in changeset 5594d173a2d3 wich looks > > intrusive and I don't understand its purpose. Could you provide a > > reference to a bug report or further information? > > Bug report was https://gna.org/bugs/?20769 Ok, thanks. Like I said, my current approach requires isolated patches for isolated issues. This would not be necessary if I could switch to sourceforge snapshots, but I'm not sure that I can. I will talk to some more experienced people to figure this out. Thanks for your help, Joris.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
