[NEW BUG]: Configure broken on MIPS

[Ao Qi]

2018-03-23 18:05 GMT+08:00 David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>:
> On 23/03/2018 7:54 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018-03-23 09:55, David Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/03/2018 6:46 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-23 06:22, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23/03/2018 2:55 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> would it not be pragmatic to accept Ao's patch - it looks fine to me -
>>>>>> since it certainly would not make matters worse. And let Magnus follow up
>>>>>> with a cleanup change later?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I hope Magnus's change is forthcoming.
>>>>
>>>> It might be some time still. I'm working on a complete overhaul of all
>>>> CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, where this is a part of that picture, but I was not
>>>> planning on addressing just this thing urgently.
>>>>
>>>> So, I think this patch will do for now. It solves the immediate problem
>>>> for MIPS, and I can come back and make a cleaner solution later on.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't the best quick fix one that only adds -m64 for x86? I recall  a
>>> report that arm32 is similarly broken.
>>
>> Not really, because this is also needed on some other platforms, at least
>> s390x, as I recall. (This was the reason it was originally added.)
>
>
> According to gcc docs there are 4 archs that use m64 and we only care about
> 2 of them:
>
> m64: SPARC Options
> m64: S/390 and zSeries Options
> m64: RS/6000 and PowerPC Options
> m64: i386 and x86-64 Options
>
> But you need to know whether you are dealing with S390 or S390x as m64
> implies zSeries.
>
> Ao will need a sponsor to create a bug etc regardless of which way this
> goes.
>

Is it possible to accept my patch first (before a perfect all-platform
solution is made)? If yes, could someone help to create a bug etc?
Thanks!

> My week is over. :)
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>> /Magnus
>>
>>>
>>> David
>>> -----
>>>
>>>>> AFAICS it's as easy to write this only for x86 as it is to exclude it
>>>>> for non x86. Honestly I don't know why the Aarch64 patch was done the way it
>>>>> was - there must be some subtlety here that I'm not aware of.
>>>>
>>>> I think it was just the smallest patch that worked for the aarch64
>>>> platform. I didn't spend time arguing about the fix, since it is supposed to
>>>> be short-lived anyway.
>>>>
>>>> /Magnus
>>
>>
>