| msg187758 - (view) |
Author: Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda (bkabrda) * |
Date: 2013-04-25 06:53 |
| Hi, would it be possible to add ppc64p7 (Power7 optimized) to supported arches in config.sub? It should be as easy as the attached one-liner patch. Thanks. |
|
|
| msg187799 - (view) |
Author: David Edelsohn (David.Edelsohn) * |
Date: 2013-04-25 18:24 |
| A POWER7 optimized build is fine, but how does recognizing an additional name help? I assume this is just a first step before generating different compiler options based on the name. |
|
|
| msg187811 - (view) |
Author: David Edelsohn (David.Edelsohn) * |
Date: 2013-04-25 19:54 |
| If I understand correctly, config.sub is imported from upstream FSF project. I do not know how much CPython diverges from the upstream file and merges in local changes. I'm still a little confused about what this patch accomplishes. One can configure with CC or CFLAGS set for POWER7. And one can test for processor feature support macros in the code. |
|
|
| msg187831 - (view) |
Author: Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda (bkabrda) * |
Date: 2013-04-26 05:56 |
| So, to give it a little background: I need this for Fedora builds on ppc64p7. Just the name recognition helps, because the name is passed automatically by rpmbuild to configure (== if not recognized, build fails). So this is basically a way for configure to recognize ppc64p7 as ppc, nothing more. Doing little googling told me that PHP already accepted patch like this [1] (although I know that Python doesn't have to do what other languages do...) [1] https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/52d1add0fe385d0e0d8b1132edd11168eb7fe0e4#config.sub |
|
|
| msg187847 - (view) |
Author: David Edelsohn (David.Edelsohn) * |
Date: 2013-04-26 13:30 |
| If you look at the top of config.sub it says: # Please send patches with a ChangeLog entry to config-patches@gnu.org. # You can get the latest version of this script from: # http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=config.git;a=blob_plain;f=config.sub;hb=HEAD I do not know Python's policy on merging these types of patches, but most projects want the patch in the upstream repository from which they import. They do not need to update to the latest, but at least backport the patch from config.sub HEAD instead of diverging and potentially losing the patch with the next update. I do not see your patch there now. I'm surprised that it's not there already if needed for Fedora. |
|
|
| msg187849 - (view) |
Author: Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda (bkabrda) * |
Date: 2013-04-26 13:38 |
| Hmm, good point. I'll try to discuss with Fedora people who work on secondary arches. Thanks. |
|
|
| msg187851 - (view) |
Author: David Edelsohn (David.Edelsohn) * |
Date: 2013-04-26 13:41 |
| I meant I don't see the equivalent of your patch in the upstream repository, so no one from the Fedora community appears to have contributed something equivalent yet. |
|
|
| msg327949 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) *  |
Date: 2018-10-18 09:33 |
| I'm sorry, but since nobody is able to review or test your patch, I have to close this issue which didn't get any activity for 5 years :-( |
|
|