[PATCH] ISL, MPC, MPFR: fix configuration issues on ARM64/Darwin host

[Joel Sherrill]

On Fri, May 13, 2022, 9:39 AM Cedric Berger <cedric at precidata.com> wrote:

> On 13.05.22 16:25, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2022, 9:08 AM Karel Gardas <karel at functional.vision>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Joel,
> >>
> >> I agree that having support upstreamed would be the best option. Due to
> >> upstream lag behind apple hardware development I'm afraid we would miss
> >> RTEMS 6 release if we would wait on upstream here, hence apple M1 users
> >> would not be able to use RTEMS 6.
> >>
> > Submitting them and then referencing the upstream email, git commit, or
> > attachment to their ticket.  We don't wait for upstream releases.
>
> The fixes here are just patches for the autoconf "config.sub" files of
> these 3 projects.
>
> The problem with these projets (isl/mpc/mfpr) is that they have not had
> any releases for 2+ years, before the M1.
>
> #find build . -name config.sub | xargs grep '^timestamp='
>
> [...]mpfr-4.1.0/config.sub:timestamp='2018-02-22'
> [...]isl-0.24/config.sub:timestamp='2018-02-22'
> [...]mpc-1.2.1/build-aux/config.sub:timestamp='2020-01-01'
>
> The other projects in the tree using autoconf that have been released in
> 2021+ compile fine on the M1.
>
> The 3 projects in questions have nothing special to do to get M1 support
> except release a new version with up-to-date autoconf stuff.
>

I think you are missing my point. I'm not opposed to the patches and
understand the need.

The RTEMS Project tried putting patches in our git repos when the RSB was
new.  It did not improve our diligence in getting them upstream or removing
them from our git when no longer needed. Putting them in tickets at
RTEMS.org or upstream improved how diligent we were about at least putting
the patch into the right hands.

The patches in RTEMS tools and the RSB probably are OBE and should be
removed. The fact they're still present shows how this can turn into a
patch graveyard.

--joel



> Cedric
>
>
>