Bug 249005 - x11/pixman: support altivec on powerpc64
Summary: x11/pixman: support altivec on powerpc64
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: powerpc Any
: --- Affects Many People
Assignee: freebsd-x11 (Nobody)
Depends on:
Reported: 2020-08-30 01:12 UTC by Piotr Kubaj
Modified: 2020-09-08 13:09 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
zeising: maintainer-feedback+

patch (1.77 KB, patch)
2020-08-30 01:12 UTC, Piotr Kubaj
pkubaj: maintainer-approval? (x11)
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Piotr Kubaj freebsd_committer 2020-08-30 01:12:47 UTC
Created attachment 217637 [details]

Altivec on powerpc64 works just fine with pixman. Attached is also a patch for runtime feature detection.
Comment 1 Niclas Zeising freebsd_committer 2020-08-30 12:41:29 UTC
Where is the patch from?  If you created it, can you submit it upstream as well?

Comment 2 Piotr Kubaj freebsd_committer 2020-08-30 15:14:55 UTC
Sure, I will send it upstream.
Comment 3 Niclas Zeising freebsd_committer 2020-08-30 15:19:24 UTC
There is no need to wait for it to be included upstream, you can add it as a patch in the FreeBSD ports tree.  I just want it to be added upstream as well, so that we don't have to carry it locally forever.  Apologies if it was unclear.
Comment 4 commit-hook freebsd_committer 2020-08-30 15:29:11 UTC
A commit references this bug:

Author: pkubaj
Date: Sun Aug 30 15:28:30 UTC 2020
New revision: 547064
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/547064

  x11/pixman: support AltiVec on powerpc64

  Altivec on powerpc64 works just fine with pixman. Also add a patch to fix runtime AltiVec detection on FreeBSD.

  Since pixman-ppc.c requires newer GCC, add USES=compiler:c11.

  PR:		249005
  Approved by:	zeising (maintainer)

Comment 5 Piotr Kubaj freebsd_committer 2020-08-30 15:30:00 UTC
Ah, I was misunderstood.

I'm not going to wait, I just wanted to write the previous message, close the PR and commit the patch.

You wrote your message between me closing the PR and commiting the patch. So I guess I'm the one who should apologize.