2012/1/18 Julius Baxter <[email protected]>: > 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
Then you got my blessing. I was going to say that you should add an entry to the changelog too, but it looks like we don't have one. -- Olof Kindgren ______________________________________________ ORSoC Website: www.orsoc.se Email: [email protected] ______________________________________________ FPGA, ASIC, DSP - embedded SoC design _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
