First of all, sorry for the long delay, I'm trying to catch up with my backlog
:-/
On Wednesday 19 March 2014 15:59:01 Mark Salter wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 14:13 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
Mark: as per [0] Thiago (upstream for qtcore) says:
+#ifndef
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 14:13 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
Mark: as per [0] Thiago (upstream for qtcore) says:
+#ifndef Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER
+# define Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile(dmb sy\n:::memory)
+#endif
+#ifndef Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER
+# define
Mark: as per [0] Thiago (upstream for qtcore) says:
+#ifndef Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER
+# define Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile(dmb sy\n:::memory)
+#endif
+#ifndef Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER
+# define Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile(:::memory)
This shouldn't be necessary anymore if we're
Hi Marcin,
I had a quick look at patches you attached. Thanks a lot for submitting them in
such structured form. My questions are:
- Are 1-basic-aarch64-detection.patch, 2-mkspecs.patch and 4-syscalls.patch
authored by you?
- Did you forget to attach 3-something patch? Or is that just a
Thanks for the quick reply. [Adding back the needed CCs addresses.]
W dniu 28.02.2014 15:19, Dmitry Shachnev pisze:
I had a quick look at patches you attached. Thanks a lot for submitting them
in
such structured form. My questions are:
- Are 1-basic-aarch64-detection.patch,
W dniu 29.01.2014 02:27, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer pisze:
Mark: please take a look at [0] for more context or ask Marcin. Quick
context:
getting AArch64 (aka arm64) Qt4 patches in upstream.
Marcin, Mark: to get the code into the Qt4 tree I either need you to:
a) push the code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W dniu 29.01.2014 02:27, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer pisze:
Mark: please take a look at [0] for more context or ask Marcin. Quick
context:
getting AArch64 (aka arm64) Qt4 patches in upstream.
Marcin, Mark: to get the code into the Qt4
[snip]
My patches are usually licensed in a way upstream license a code.
For this situation you can consider them to be on CC0 (aka public
domain) or simply BSD licenced.
Thanks *a lot* Marcin!
--
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him
Mark: please take a look at [0] for more context or ask Marcin. Quick context:
getting AArch64 (aka arm64) Qt4 patches in upstream.
Marcin, Mark: to get the code into the Qt4 tree I either need you to:
a) push the code to Qt's gerrit instance
or
b) license the patches as BSD or something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W dniu 23.01.2014 18:57, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer pisze:
I've tried to summarize the current arm64 situation. The following are my
conclusions, feel free to point if something is wrong, give more
info/feedback, etc.
As you know from
+++ Marcin Juszkiewicz [2014-01-27 17:41 +0100]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W dniu 23.01.2014 18:57, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer pisze:
I've tried to summarize the current arm64 situation. The following are my
conclusions, feel free to point if something is
On Monday 27 January 2014 17:41:26 Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
[snip]
- It uses linux-g++ instead of linux-g++-64. While that could be the best
fit, it would be good to know why.
Maybe it is because linux-g++ may use '-m64' argument for GCC which
AArch64 does not support so build fails.
W dniu 27.01.2014 19:20, Wookey pisze:
+++ Marcin Juszkiewicz [2014-01-27 17:41 +0100]:
- It uses linux-g++ instead of linux-g++-64. While that could be the best
fit,
it would be good to know why.
Maybe it is because linux-g++ may use '-m64' argument for GCC which
AArch64 does not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W dniu 27.01.2014 19:14, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer pisze:
So what we are currently missing should be:
- The copyright and license of the qatomic stuff.
Author: Mark Salter msal...@redhat.com
License: same as upstream one
-BEGIN PGP
On Monday 27 January 2014 19:32:43 Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
W dniu 27.01.2014 19:14, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer pisze:
So what we are currently missing should be:
- The copyright and license of the qatomic stuff.
Author: Mark Salter msal...@redhat.com
License: same as
On Monday 27 January 2014 19:29:04 Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
[snip]
Are QT4 patches going to be accepted at some point or will distros have
to carry an arm64 patch for QT4 as long as it remains supported?
Ask in https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-35442 please
I'll take care of
On Monday 27 January 2014 18:20:21 Wookey wrote:
[snip]
Qt4 patches are not accepted upstream. All new code has to go to Qt5 and
since 5.2.0 QAtomics stuff is using std::atomic so compiler takes care
of it and there is no code for separate architectures.
Are QT4 patches going to be
On Monday 27 January 2014 22:32:01 Wookey wrote:
[snip]
Wookey: are there any arm64 porterboxes available? I can't promise
anything, but maybe at some point I could help...
Not yet. No. And I don't yet know when there might be. 'In time for
Jessie, hopefully' is the only clue I've had so
tag 735488 - patch
thanks
I've tried to summarize the current arm64 situation. The following are my
conclusions, feel free to point if something is wrong, give more
info/feedback, etc.
= Stuff under debian/
- As explained in a mail before, we don't like the idea of passing
-fpermissive as it
19 matches
Mail list logo
