Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend
Joachim Breitner
Hi,
Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 08:20 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari:
Again Google finds me a bug, but this time one that has no fix associated with it: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8951
Ben, can you help me out here?
I've been unable to reproduce this issue in my environment. The build succeeded using your packaging on my Odroid XU running Debian Jessie.
Weird. Can you try creating a sid chroot and building it in there?
I managed to finish the build with this patch attached:
Great!
So what does that tell us? Maybe Peter can help us: Is it normal for a Debian system to pretend that its a pre-v6 ARM, even if the actual hardware is not?
Could you confirm that arm_HOST_ARCH_PRE_ARMv6 is actually defined in mk/config.h? If so we should try to figure out why. The architecture is determined by autoconf. Perhaps you could attach config.log?
It seems that this is likely due to dh_autoreconf which overwrites all config.subs with /usr/share/misc/config.sub. It's totally unclear to me how the first build succeeded, however.
Have you seen this in the past?
Yes, likely a bug in dh_autoreconf that does not handle rebuilds well (or a bug in how we use it).
Hmm, alright. Why exactly do we overwrite config.sub and config.guess? I guess we are trying to ensure that the build systems in libraries/* are generated by the system's autoconf (taking the place of `boot`)? Is there a reason we can't just use autoreconf as `boot` does? Cheers, - Ben
Hi, Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 11:07 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari:
So what does that tell us? Maybe Peter can help us: Is it normal for a Debian system to pretend that its a pre-v6 ARM, even if the actual hardware is not?
Could you confirm that arm_HOST_ARCH_PRE_ARMv6 is actually defined in mk/config.h? If so we should try to figure out why. The architecture is determined by autoconf. Perhaps you could attach config.log?
Yes: /* ARM pre v6 */ #define arm_HOST_ARCH_PRE_ARMv6 1 /* ARM pre v7 */ #define arm_HOST_ARCH_PRE_ARMv7 1 I think we should continue under the hypothesis that this is correct, i.e. that packages built for Debian’s armel are expected to run on ARMv5 machines. config.log attached.
Yes, likely a bug in dh_autoreconf that does not handle rebuilds well (or a bug in how we use it).
Hmm, alright. Why exactly do we overwrite config.sub and config.guess? I guess we are trying to ensure that the build systems in libraries/* are generated by the system's autoconf (taking the place of `boot`)? Is there a reason we can't just use autoreconf as `boot` does?
It’s recommended to take the system’s autoconf files, as sometimes the Debian porters adjust these files. The handling of that in debian/rules is currently a mess, and is clearly broken. But that’s Debian’s very own problem, don’t worry about that :-) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de Jabber-ID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de
participants (2)
-
Ben Gamari -
Joachim Breitner