Re: [Sbcl-devel] Bug#954031: sbcl: Please allow building with clisp on currently unsupported architectures

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sbcl-devel] Bug#954031: sbcl: Please allow building with clisp on currently unsupported architectures

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hi!

On 3/16/20 1:16 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> sbcl has partial support for alpha, hppa, mips*, ppc64 and riscv64
> and if we try to build sbcl on any architecture using clisp, we will
> be able to provide upstream with a build log of sbcl on any architecture
> that might be supported in the future (like ppc64 and riscv64) or
> was previously supported and is currently broken (like alpha and hppa).
>
> The attached patch enables building with clisp on all unsupported
> architectures.

Any chance we can get this implemented for the next upload?

FWIW, sbcl builds fine for me on mipsel if clang is used as the C compiler,
I'll file a separate bug report for that.

Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - [hidden email]
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - [hidden email]
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug#954031: [Sbcl-devel] Bug#954031: sbcl: Please allow building with clisp on currently unsupported architectures

Sébastien Villemot-2
Hi,

Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 16:43 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit :

> On 3/16/20 1:16 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > sbcl has partial support for alpha, hppa, mips*, ppc64 and riscv64
> > and if we try to build sbcl on any architecture using clisp, we will
> > be able to provide upstream with a build log of sbcl on any architecture
> > that might be supported in the future (like ppc64 and riscv64) or
> > was previously supported and is currently broken (like alpha and hppa).
> >
> > The attached patch enables building with clisp on all unsupported
> > architectures.
>
> Any chance we can get this implemented for the next upload?
>
> FWIW, sbcl builds fine for me on mipsel if clang is used as the C compiler,
> I'll file a separate bug report for that.
I have mixed feelings about this. I am worried by the fact that those
architectures are not really supported upstream. Hence, if by chance we
manage to compile SBCL on one of those mostly-unsupported archs, I
don’t know how we would be able to deal with regressions that could
appear in the future, and that would block testing migration for
supported archs.

What’s your view on this?

Best,

--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  https://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  https://www.debian.org


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug#954031: [Sbcl-devel] Bug#954031: sbcl: Please allow building with clisp on currently unsupported architectures

Sébastien Villemot-2
Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 16:56 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit :

> On 4/1/20 4:51 PM, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > > FWIW, sbcl builds fine for me on mipsel if clang is used as the C compiler,
> > > I'll file a separate bug report for that.
> >
> > I have mixed feelings about this. I am worried by the fact that those
> > architectures are not really supported upstream. Hence, if by chance we
> > manage to compile SBCL on one of those mostly-unsupported archs, I
> > don’t know how we would be able to deal with regressions that could
> > appear in the future, and that would block testing migration for
> > supported archs.
>
> First of all, testing migration is only affected if:
>
> a) a package previously built fine on a certain architecture
> b) the architecture in question is one of the release architectures
>   (this does not apply for alpha, hppa, ppc64, riscv64)
>
> So, the currently only candidate for this scenario is mipsel and I think this
> is a risk that is bearable, in particular since upstream considers 32-bit mips
> one of the supported architectures unlike alpha and hppa.
There is also armel that you added recently (I don’t know how supported
it is by upstream).

> In the worst case, you will have to file a removal bugs for sbcl on mipsel
> if upstream is really unwilling to fix the build issue on mipsel which I don't
> think is the case. I have had a lot of interaction with Doug Kratzman from
> sbcl upstream and he is usually very responsive.
>
> I will help with the package in any case.

Note that several reverse build-dependencies of sbcl (e.g. pgloader)
would have to be removed as well.

In any case, thanks for your commitment to helping with portability.
I’m going to apply the patch attached to the present bug in the next
upload.

--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  https://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  https://www.debian.org


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug#954031: [Sbcl-devel] Bug#954031: sbcl: Please allow building with clisp on currently unsupported architectures

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
(Switched back to my main address, accidentally switched to GMail)

On 4/1/20 5:05 PM, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
>> So, the currently only candidate for this scenario is mipsel and I think this
>> is a risk that is bearable, in particular since upstream considers 32-bit mips
>> one of the supported architectures unlike alpha and hppa.
>
> There is also armel that you added recently (I don’t know how supported
> it is by upstream).

ARMv5 is actually the default baseline that upstream supports. A patch by
me to raise the baseline for ARM was rejected by Stas.

>> In the worst case, you will have to file a removal bugs for sbcl on mipsel
>> if upstream is really unwilling to fix the build issue on mipsel which I don't
>> think is the case. I have had a lot of interaction with Doug Kratzman from
>> sbcl upstream and he is usually very responsive.
>>
>> I will help with the package in any case.
>
> Note that several reverse build-dependencies of sbcl (e.g. pgloader)
> would have to be removed as well.

Good point, but I think the list isn't too long:

Checking reverse dependencies...
# Broken Depends:
buildapp: buildapp [amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 ppc64el]

# Broken Build-Depends:
apt-dpkg-ref: sbcl
buildapp: sbcl
cafeobj: sbcl
cffi: sbcl
cl-alexandria: sbcl
cl-asdf: sbcl
cl-unicode: sbcl
pgcharts/non-free: sbcl (>= 1.2.0)
pgloader: sbcl (>= 1.1.13)
stumpwm: sbcl

> In any case, thanks for your commitment to helping with portability.
> I’m going to apply the patch attached to the present bug in the next
> upload.

Thanks and you're welcome. I enjoy fixing these portability issues.

Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - [hidden email]
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - [hidden email]
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913