On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 03:47:15PM +0100, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
> > Of the others on your list: do they make much use of gccxml output?
> > Are there tests for that?
>
> I don't know the answers. All I did was blindly run dpkg-buildpackage
> on the packages I listed. However, a quick google
> I suggested activiz.net because Mathieu had mentioned it in this bug
> thread. I expect it would be a good test of gccxml. But
> insighttoolkit is also a good test. I can't recall what wrapping is
> enabled, but did you successfully run the ITK test suite of python
> wrapping?
>
> Of the other
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:09:11AM +0100, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
> Steve:
>
> > That is too kludgy and speculative for my taste. Can you test it by
> > building
> > ActiViz on arm64 with this patch?
>
> Is that "activiz.net"? That package Build-Depends on mono, both
> directly and through
Steve:
> That is too kludgy and speculative for my taste. Can you test it by building
> ActiViz on arm64 with this patch?
Is that "activiz.net"? That package Build-Depends on mono, both
directly and through mummy, and there's no sign of anybody porting
mono to arm64. Do you think it could be ha
On June 23, 2015 12:23:14 PM you wrote:
> You can build gccxml on arm64 with the attached low-tech kludge.
>
> I'm not sure if the result is fit for any purpose, but perhaps it is.
That is too kludgy and speculative for my taste. Can you test it by building
ActiViz on arm64 with this patch?
-S
You can build gccxml on arm64 with the attached low-tech kludge.
I'm not sure if the result is fit for any purpose, but perhaps it is.
Strings containing "powerpc" and "ppc" appear in usr/bin/gccxml_cc1plus
but perhaps they don't appear in any output from that binary, or only
appear in places whe
http://gccxml.github.io/HTML/News.html says:
"2015-03-26: GCC-XML has been succeeded by CastXML."
If adding arm64 to gccxml really is easy, perhaps it would be worth
doing, as it's blocking a few other packages. However, packaging
CastXML might be more useful in the longer term.
--
To UNSUBSCRI
> I'm not sure how much of the aarch64 support from later gcc's is needed.
Wookey,
gccxml only needs the internal GCC parser to work. So adding a new
arch should be pretty simple, no code generation is involved within
gccxml (it dumps the C++ representation as a parsable XML
representation, that
Hello Wookey,
On November 12, 2014 12:44:12 AM Wookey wrote:
> Is there a good reason why gccxml has config from such an old gcc?
> Could it be moved forward to a newer base?
These are questions for upstream, but I believe the answer to the final
question is "yes; as soon as someone steps up to
I had a look at this and whilst the fix for ppc64le is simple, for
arm64 it seems a lot harder. This package seems to be based on a very
old gcc, so trying to merge the aarch64 support back from later gcc's
is not a trivial matter. Lots of things have changed in file layout.
I'm not sure how much
10 matches
Mail list logo
