From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 8MV8BDjm4l8McwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 06:39:52 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id KNFgADjm4l90ZgAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 06:39:52 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25A469404C5 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 06:39:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51974 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1krxoL-0003RL-KH for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 01:39:49 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44242) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1krxne-0003Q5-Kk for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 01:39:08 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40014) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1krxna-0007XB-JF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 01:39:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1krxna-0003lC-HG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 01:39:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#45252] [PATCH] gnu: libffi: Add unreleased patch to fix float128 on powerpc64le. Resent-From: Chris Marusich Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 06:39:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 45252 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Mark H Weaver Received: via spool by 45252-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B45252.160870552514429 (code B ref 45252); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 06:39:02 +0000 Received: (at 45252) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Dec 2020 06:38:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51560 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1krxnI-0003ke-J8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 01:38:44 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f181.google.com ([209.85.210.181]:42346) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1krxnG-0003kS-J6 for 45252@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 01:38:43 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f181.google.com with SMTP id v2so9819138pfm.9 for <45252@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 22:38:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=nyNpyipZYPPS9N9aXJh52U4mbXei1dXqIn0toLEWqeE=; b=uzMUJer5EaUXc4QauM50F5/MaiUL30hb1uHn0oB7IxoewOcsmdslvmk2mjnTQZ9Bkp rN2W7dVaLYM9zh5rivgKImid6O8Z4CASXjl041OfoPmOFW+B4O8iBv+YF7Lly15iL81E kzShT2ZaIfVqOJu6bwiF2uFqiTvby6JlDzPe7QYI0lQDi4uc7bNs8Qb9xBUme7Q6Zibx i4NEtxk8Emz7txT2ultnS38V/W06ukj+i/PW6S+JZPEtXCMRDYM3fDY8wePLztunhBUZ kxE+m6EIbVV/CwEwZ76H0e8QT6cIdnmsHLdZj+YwSZIhKj5aDSVo82UjwqJffJej5IOk rHwA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=nyNpyipZYPPS9N9aXJh52U4mbXei1dXqIn0toLEWqeE=; b=dnZ3o6hqcQJCXX+jOGmk3WvsYKY9iKK5lchH3bywyWpIgAwc2YtDFd9KTkEsSycvbY hvXIjj/kEytl2WD0rol+j8bJCFiO9sSwqk5x9Kb6jYz27KrKPySEyi0CyAQq+D166h6k 2a6QLqfuHgHyunK7514n6maEZeWqwQ1lorJcET5JTArPITcG4FfNJt3X6zO298mtd3Lh zSYGOgiBV+yCTXNAzVDF4cSAjP5GNu+amd7NIqFgS8R+VxSj0Jhdbd1FYKHKDoHNCjkR tDlSyG8d6UGGeEjzubpF19HRRihicf23PJ9jjaVPmFslebwK6a8fbNYy1XfxjTdJetsv TXyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mVol8yiAVDfQ6wQppHuGQnDbJck26oFFA4i+qBuzqdlQJ+wSz 4KunoDZrhRGThKNisyReGpw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxs3BH2O9OIXBxrytnjfhRDENovqDd5SZbZxTDgtcgkG5UeHKpc7JPC9ZtZYvrO4/MUM1iqaQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1593:b029:198:195:4d93 with SMTP id u19-20020a056a001593b029019801954d93mr22657953pfk.32.1608705516530; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 22:38:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from garuda-lan ([2601:601:9d00:688::c9a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h11sm20923698pjg.46.2020.12.22.22.38.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Dec 2020 22:38:35 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Marusich References: <87y2hqifp3.fsf@netris.org> <87tuseidlk.fsf@netris.org> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 22:38:29 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87tuseidlk.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 22 Dec 2020 01:00:44 -0500") Message-ID: <87r1nhdo2i.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, John Doe , 45252@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -0.82 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (headers rsa verify failed) header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=uzMUJer5; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 25A469404C5 X-Spam-Score: -0.82 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: m2y6g5sY6QE2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver writes: > Earlier, I wrote: >> When invoking 'patch' in Guix, you should *always* use "--force" instead >> of "--batch". > > (See for my earlier message). Thank you for letting me know about this. I didn't know about the difference between "--batch" and "--force". I agree we should use "--force" instead of "--batch". How do you recommend that I proceed? I can definitely make another commit on the master branch to change the option from "--batch" to "--force". However, I'm reluctant to change the option in the existing code on the master branch (introduced in commit 02f5ee01c96589fc13f1e21b85b0b48100aec4e8), since I'm not sure how many packages would be rebuilt as a result. The powerpc64le architecture is not bootstrapped at all yet, so it's not a problem for that architecture, but I don't know the status for all the other architectures beginning with "powerpc". Before I make a new commit to change the patch option on the master branch, I'd appreciate your advice on how to proceed. Do you think it would be better to make a commit on the master branch to fix just the option I introduced in commit 7eaa2f24ea77cddbb4bbc2d6a6905673a36f8f99? Or, do you think it would be better to make a commit on the core-updates branch to change all the "--batch" options to "--force" options in the libffi package definition? If we did it on core-updates, we could just replace the manual invocation of the "patch" tool with a change that looks more like 4fff5ab24126a152b50c036b9bf8dc6f2740f094, in particular this part: diff --git a/gnu/packages/libffi.scm b/gnu/packages/libffi.scm index 0e6a31d78c..0db8fa3e82 100644 =2D-- a/gnu/packages/libffi.scm +++ b/gnu/packages/libffi.scm @@ -51,7 +51,8 @@ (sha256 (base32 "0mi0cpf8aa40ljjmzxb7im6dbj45bb0kllcd09xgmp834y9agyvj")) =2D (patches (search-patches "libffi-3.3-powerpc-fixes.patch")= ))) + (patches (search-patches "libffi-3.3-powerpc-fixes.patch" + "libffi-float128-powerpc64le.patch"= )))) (build-system gnu-build-system) (arguments `(;; Prevent the build system from passing -march and -mtune to the I thought we wanted to apply patch 45252 on the master branch. That's why I made commit 7eaa2f24ea77cddbb4bbc2d6a6905673a36f8f99. Afterwords, I actually reverted commit 4fff5ab24126a152b50c036b9bf8dc6f2740f094 on the core-updates branch in commit b50341dba9811c048bed852c0279b828c7ddba66. I reverted it because I thought it would be undesirable to solve the same problem in two different ways on two separate branches, and I thought that reverting it would reduce the risk of merge conflicts later. However, now that I think about it, I'm not sure the reversion was necessary. I'm actually not sure what the normal procedure is for merging to/from core-updates and master (I've done many merges in my own projects, but I've never done a merge in the Guix project), so I'm not sure how a "TODO" task like the one mentioned in commit 7eaa2f24ea77cddbb4bbc2d6a6905673a36f8f99 ("Inline patches on next rebuild cycle") would normally be resolved. I would welcome any advice you have about that. By the way, a wip-ppc64le branch also exists, but I don't know what its status is or whether I'm allowed to touch it. I just assumed things would be simpler if we applied patches to master branch when possible. > Since writing the message above, I've found another problem in the same > commit (7eaa2f24ea77cddbb4bbc2d6a6905673a36f8f99): it searches for the > 'patch' program in 'inputs'. This is a mistake, because when > cross-compiling, 'inputs' will contain software compiled to run on the > target system instead of the build system. Is it searching for the "patch" program, or is it searching for the patch file? It looks to me like the code is searching for the patch file in inputs, not the "patch" program. The relevant code is here: ,@(if (string-prefix? "powerpc64le-" (or (%current-target-system) (%current-system))) '(#:phases (modify-phases %standard-phases (add-after 'unpack 'apply-patch2 (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys) (let ((patch (assoc-ref inputs "powerpc64le-patch"))) (invoke "patch" "--batch" "-p1" "-i" patch)))))) The code invokes the "patch" program in the usual way. My understanding is that whatever version of the "patch" program that Guix has placed in the PATH environment variable will be used. Therefore, Guix will use the correct "patch" program, regardless of whether or not the package is being cross-compiled. Am I misunderstanding something? Again, thank you for taking the time to bring these topics up. I'm always trying to make sure I do things the best way I can in Guix, so I appreciate the feedback. =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEy/WXVcvn5+/vGD+x3UCaFdgiRp0FAl/i5eUACgkQ3UCaFdgi Rp1v4RAAracW0Kd8BJu2tOtBvKTzULu1xxZa2pG3hnABpvnLpAbWFRT5ZIF3dlv1 68QAFyK0WtzKXlSdOFa2b46COLPFh12yCm4gA7NVJuzqOIu8iF5XGoqu5C7r/03h k7W1d4cEgTRkPagjKOH8MX2DpBF9hlGm3P0jOXwyV3DZGH9ZcRDxXznJpcsRXV4g 9nYHOV3Lpv6PvFzhf4r6L0H8FCKF34lBsYPeePF8jrKgyGNzpAEz1mE0Ev5cLCt5 L8gALNNR889gaQ4W3yHLYZUFIOe/8DsZrBVJlnbWy8Kf+pW939pr7Woer32pBfTn +yO0Q3rCNWALWSDItxAr9YenyhEpH81bpnEY9GsrfXS5zVRK9UVv8bfZHameGjq5 FgE0LRkXkMSfRDhF8hv1TfFtXaWsmrTOnkbTx9i7KwVo0iLFvJ0XkRqUW3SSR9/g LCz46z7vIhlkvsR/dcUca1MDUgy80Xn85yeRbut5cU8iZ6Wj0bxbEl8hCp+X8ppL cOwbkUqKuoUEkmXj/e3VFUZNy1ILGSPLNQA+ET+xlM6bWwfKv/lENdTiOoSwF1wN DqDn0kseTkyinhRMzrU1atrYQMi6BNrn2jDHaPKEiQOlyaVfSzLv6XjOfLB6uQu1 cr9L+bboP4aR1nlgZEWbdduHMhRbJtHV+Ja+dAbfUQvuo8itE4k= =CGAf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--