GNU bug report logs - #55151
[PATCH] gnu: Add qbe.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 55151 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 55151 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jon Eskin <eskinjp <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add qbe.
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:03:39 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

I’ve packaged the qbe compiler backend. I’m new to GUIX, so let me know if I messed anything up!

I sent this about patch about a half hour ago and it shows as sent on my end but isn’t showing up on the archive… apologies if it comes through twice.

Jon

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-gnu-Add-qbe.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

[Message part 4 (text/html, inline)]

Message #10 received at 55151 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>
Cc: paren <at> disroot.org, 55151 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 53833 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#53833: [PATCH] gnu: Add qbe.
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 15:16:13 +0200

Hi,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at> skribis:

> Am Montag, dem 25.04.2022 um 20:05 +0000 schrieb paren <at> disroot.org:
>> QBE is now being used in one reasonably mature project:
>> https://harelang.org
>> 
>> While it's not at 1.0 yet, it's been in development for ~2 (i think)
>> years now.
> I'm not asking for a 1.0, I'd be fine with a 0.1 or even a 0.0.1.  As
> it stands, every place I look at says "this is experimental" rather
> than "you can use this and it ought to work as intended at least for
> these sample programs".

But that’s fine: having a web page at all, or one that doesn’t read
“experimental”, has never been a criterion for getting a package in
Guix.

There’s now a second patch for qbe:

  https://issues.guix.gnu.org/55151

I propose to go ahead and apply it, adding anything missing from paren’s
initial patch.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #13 received at 55151 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: paren <at> disroot.org, Jon Eskin <eskinjp <at> gmail.com>, jgart <at> dismail.de,
 55151 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 53833 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#53833: [PATCH] gnu: Add qbe.
Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 08:33:22 +0200

Hi Ludo,

Am Sonntag, dem 01.05.2022 um 15:16 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Hi,
> 
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at> skribis:
> 
> > Am Montag, dem 25.04.2022 um 20:05 +0000 schrieb paren <at> disroot.org:
> > 
> > > QBE is now being used in one reasonably mature project:
> > > https://harelang.org
> > > 
> > > While it's not at 1.0 yet, it's been in development for ~2 (i
> > > think) years now.
> > I'm not asking for a 1.0, I'd be fine with a 0.1 or even a 0.0.1. 
> > As it stands, every place I look at says "this is experimental"
> > rather than "you can use this and it ought to work as intended at
> > least for these sample programs".
> 
> But that’s fine: having a web page at all, or one that doesn’t read
> “experimental”, has never been a criterion for getting a package in
> Guix.
That's not my criterion either.  My critierion is more or less "Will we
have to revision-bump this package daily/every few days because people
want to play with the latest stuff?"  With upstream having seen no
commit for three weeks at this point, I guess it might be fine.

> There’s now a second patch for qbe:
> 
>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/55151
> 
> I propose to go ahead and apply it, adding anything missing from
> paren’s initial patch.
IMHO, paren's initial patch is slightly better in quality than 55151,
but there are two (three) things lacking.  First, the synopsis and
description are subpar.  55151 has a slightly better synopsis, don't
feel too sure about the description though.  Second, the "fix-cc" phase
from 55151 should be added after unpack ("patch-test-script" sounds
like a better phase name).  It might be better to use (cc-for-target)
in the substitution rather than gcc, but note that this substitution
only applies for native compilation anyway.

cproc too seems to grow at a slower pace now.  Might be worth moving
stuff over from guixrus now.  Note that the cproc package has #:tests
#f without an explanation, though, so it needs some polishing.

Cheers

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.