[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why is GCL built with address@hidden

From: Efraim Flashner
Subject: Re: Why is GCL built with address@hidden
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:37:54 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.11.0 (2018-11-25)

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:33:48PM +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:03:59AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> > Hi Efraim,
> > 
> > I'm curious about this commit of yours from April 2017:
> > 
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> > commit 5c7815f205e9164d4b82378de91bee7a65bcfbcb
> > Author: Efraim Flashner <address@hidden>
> > Date:   Mon Apr 10 05:20:09 2017 +0300
> > 
> >     gnu: gcl: Build with address@hidden
> >     
> >     * gnu/packages/lisp.scm (gcl)[native-inputs]: Add address@hidden
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> > 
> > Do you remember why you did this?  There's no explanation in the
> > comments, nor in the commit log, nor in the 'bug-guix' or 'guix-devel'
> > email archives from around that time.
> > 
> > I'd like to remove it, and I've verified that on x86_64-linux, GCL
> > builds successfully with the default compiler.
> > 
> > In general, it would be good to include comments with rationale for
> > workarounds like this, so that we have some idea of when the workaround
> > can be removed, and what tests we must do to ensure that the original
> > problem has been addressed.
> > 
> >      Thanks,
> >        Mark
> I looked through the commits and I'm not sure why I added address@hidden When
> did we change our default gcc from 4.9 to 5? I've made one attempt so
> far at building on aarch64-linux without address@hidden and I got a core-dump
> but I haven't built it recently to see if it does that as-is.
> I'll take a closer look at it and try to see what's up.

I tried compiling gcl with address@hidden also and it still failed on aarch64.
The closest I have to a clue is that Debian's rule file has commented
out to use address@hidden, so I'm guessing that following our upgrade to
building with address@hidden the package broke and it worked for a time with
address@hidden Since it fails to build in any case on aarch64 and building
with address@hidden doesn't cause any problems I'll go ahead and remove it.

Efraim Flashner   <address@hidden>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]