On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Olof Kindgren <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012/1/18 Julius Baxter <[email protected]>: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Olof Kindgren <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> 2012/1/17 [email protected] <[email protected]>: >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> I'm looking at this patch, applied not long ago: >>>> >>>> ORPSoC: Fix Bug 76 - Incorrect unsigned integer less-than compare with >>>> COMP3 option enabled >>>> OR1200 RTL fix and software test added. >>>> >>>> This patch landed in the OpenCores Subversion repository at this location: >>>> >>>> /openrisc/trunk/orpsocv2/rtl/verilog/or1200 >>>> >>>> However, I just realised that there is another copy of the OpenRISC core >>>> RTL >>>> at this location: >>>> >>>> /openrisc/trunk/or1200/rtl/verilog >>>> >>>> This copy does not seem to have been patched though. >>>> >>>> I think I've read in this forum that there is a similar issue with the GCC >>>> toolchain, there are at least 2 copies, is that right? >>>> >>>> I am confused about which copies I should be using at the moment. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> R. Diez >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenRISC mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc >>>> >>> >>> You are right. I reopened bug bug 57 a few days ago >>> (http://bugzilla.opencores.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57) >>> This is not good, especially as we had the two code bases in sync >>> before that. Someone should patch this in the upstream core, and until >>> we only have a single one copy all patches should apply to both from >>> here on. I know that there is an argument for having ORPSoCv2-specific >>> patches, but I'm not really sure there are any real use cases for >>> that. >> >> There's already a thread for this bug. See my last post on it: >> >> http://lists.openrisc.net/pipermail/openrisc/2011-December/000507.html >> >> I was waiting for someone else to confirm this bug is fixed before >> patching the upstream copy. >> >> But, totally agree on the issues relating to multiple copies and that >> having them is one of the worst things you can do. >> >> Julius > > You're right, Julius. I had missed that thread. Do we have enough > confidence in the solution now to patch the upstream copy, or do we > need to take some action before that?
I'm very sure the fix is good _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
