On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ghislain Vaillant <ghisv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This part of the patch still sounds weird to me:
>
> ifneq (,$(filter mips64%el mips64%el,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)))
>
> The repetition of "mips64%el" looks unnecessary to me.
>
> Besides, since the aim is to catch all future mips64* architectures,
> shouldn't this be enough:
>
> ifneq (,$(filter mips64%,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)))
yeah, it sounds good.
>
> Unless I am missing something here. Let me know what you think.
>
> Ghis
>
>
> 2015-11-30 8:00 GMT+00:00 YunQiang Su <wzss...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> I tested this patch. It works well for mips64el.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:40 AM, YunQiang Su <wzss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Ghislain Vaillant <ghisv...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> This is the relevant portion of the proposed patch:
>> >>
>> >>> ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH),ppc64el)
>> >>> DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -mno-altivec
>> >>> +DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -mno-altivec
>> >>> +endif
>> >>> +# Build without Altivec to prevent FTBFS on ppc64el.
>> >>> +ifneq (,$(filter mips64%el mips64%el,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)))
>> >>> +DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -mxgot
>> >>> +DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -mxgot
>> >>> endif
>> >>
>> >> But the explanation is:
>> >>
>> >>> filter mips%64 mips%64el,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)
>> >>> is due to we may has some other mips64 architectures in future,
>> >>> for example: mips64r6{el}.
>> >>
>> >> The filter string differs between the patch and explanation:
>> >
>> > The patch is correct.
>> >
>> > Sorry for it.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> filter mips64%el mips64%el
>> >>
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> filter mips%64 mips%64el.
>> >>
>> >> One is twice the same (typo?), the other has the percent sign placed
>> >> differently.
>> >>
>> >> Please confirm the correct filter command, otherwise I cannot apply
>> >> this
>> >> patch.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Ghis
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > YunQiang Su
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> YunQiang Su
>
>
--
YunQiang Su
