2018-03-23 18:05 GMT+08:00 David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>: > On 23/03/2018 7:54 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> >> >> On 2018-03-23 09:55, David Holmes wrote: >>> >>> On 23/03/2018 6:46 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2018-03-23 06:22, David Holmes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Thomas, >>>>> >>>>> On 23/03/2018 2:55 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>> >>>>>> would it not be pragmatic to accept Ao's patch - it looks fine to me - >>>>>> since it certainly would not make matters worse. And let Magnus follow up >>>>>> with a cleanup change later? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well I hope Magnus's change is forthcoming. >>>> >>>> It might be some time still. I'm working on a complete overhaul of all >>>> CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, where this is a part of that picture, but I was not >>>> planning on addressing just this thing urgently. >>>> >>>> So, I think this patch will do for now. It solves the immediate problem >>>> for MIPS, and I can come back and make a cleaner solution later on. >>> >>> >>> Isn't the best quick fix one that only adds -m64 for x86? I recall a >>> report that arm32 is similarly broken. >> >> Not really, because this is also needed on some other platforms, at least >> s390x, as I recall. (This was the reason it was originally added.) > > > According to gcc docs there are 4 archs that use m64 and we only care about > 2 of them: > > m64: SPARC Options > m64: S/390 and zSeries Options > m64: RS/6000 and PowerPC Options > m64: i386 and x86-64 Options > > But you need to know whether you are dealing with S390 or S390x as m64 > implies zSeries. > > Ao will need a sponsor to create a bug etc regardless of which way this > goes. >
Is it possible to accept my patch first (before a perfect all-platform solution is made)? If yes, could someone help to create a bug etc? Thanks! > My week is over. :) > > Cheers, > David > > >> /Magnus >> >>> >>> David >>> ----- >>> >>>>> AFAICS it's as easy to write this only for x86 as it is to exclude it >>>>> for non x86. Honestly I don't know why the Aarch64 patch was done the way >>>>> it >>>>> was - there must be some subtlety here that I'm not aware of. >>>> >>>> I think it was just the smallest patch that worked for the aarch64 >>>> platform. I didn't spend time arguing about the fix, since it is supposed >>>> to >>>> be short-lived anyway. >>>> >>>> /Magnus >> >> >
