Status and future of the LLVM backend

Joachim Breitner mail at
Mon Dec 8 16:30:09 UTC 2014


Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 11:07 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari:
> > So what does that tell us? Maybe Peter can help us: Is it normal for a
> > Debian system to pretend that its a pre-v6 ARM, even if the actual
> > hardware is not?
> >
> Could you confirm that arm_HOST_ARCH_PRE_ARMv6 is actually defined in
> mk/config.h? If so we should try to figure out why. The architecture is
> determined by autoconf. Perhaps you could attach config.log?


/* ARM pre v6 */
#define arm_HOST_ARCH_PRE_ARMv6 1

/* ARM pre v7 */
#define arm_HOST_ARCH_PRE_ARMv7 1

I think we should continue under the hypothesis that this is correct,
i.e. that packages built for Debian’s armel are expected to run on ARMv5

config.log attached.

> > Yes, likely a bug in dh_autoreconf that does not handle rebuilds well
> > (or a bug in how we use it).
> >
> Hmm, alright. Why exactly do we overwrite config.sub and config.guess?
> I guess we are trying to ensure that the build systems in libraries/*
> are generated by the system's autoconf (taking the place of `boot`)? 
> Is there a reason we can't just use autoreconf as `boot` does?

It’s recommended to take the system’s autoconf files, as sometimes the
Debian porters adjust these files. 

The handling of that in debian/rules is currently a mess, and is clearly
broken. But that’s Debian’s very own problem, don’t worry about that :-)


Joachim Breitner
  e-Mail: mail at
  Jabber-ID: nomeata at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: config.log
Type: text/x-log
Size: 198671 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list