From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Perez de Castro Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:18:30 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2/next 3/4] webkitgtk: update to version 2.20.0 In-Reply-To: <20180410205516.0b7958bd@windsurf> References: <20180323185942.60252-1-aperez@igalia.com> <20180323185942.60252-4-aperez@igalia.com> <87po3t21cy.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20180410095327.59c0e9d8@windsurf> <20180410165409.GD19381@momiji> <20180410175738.40345498@windsurf> <20180410171826.GF19381@momiji> <20180410205516.0b7958bd@windsurf> Message-ID: <20180410201830.GH19381@momiji> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi again, On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:55:16 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:18:26 +0100, Adrian Perez de Castro wrote: > > > > Then the following paragraph that you wrote: > > > > > > This series starts with the same three patches as the previous > > > submission, and adds on top three additional commits to make > > > WebKitGTK+ available on AArch64 (it's a platform we support > > > upstream), and adds a couple of patches which are already merged in > > > the upstream repository, but are not in the release and are worth > > > applying. > > > > > > is a bit unclear. You're saying "adds on top three additional commits > > > to make WebKitGTK+ available on AArch6". What those three additional > > > commits ? > > > > > > For the record, your patch series was: > > > > > > brotli: new package > > > woff2: new package > > > webkitgtk: update to version 2.20.0 > > > webkitgtk: Add upstream patch for better memory monitoring > > > > Ah, right: first I thought of making a separate patch for the small change > > of marking as available on AArch64. That, plus one commit for the upstream > > build fix, plus one commit for the upstream memory monitor patch. The first > > I ended up stashing with ?webkitgtk: update to version 2.20.0?, and the other > > two are not going to be needed for 2.20.1 (they were merged upstream). > > OK, thanks for the clarification. Also, I have found out from one of my test builds that in both 2.20.x releases we have an ugly regression of the JSC JIT support on 32-bit MIPS and ARM when using the softfp ABI. A patch for this is at https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183786 but we (the WebKitGTK upstream) haven't decided yet whether it will be in the next 2.20.x release. Some of us think it is worth a try, so I am in the middle of backporting the patch (and a few other patches needed by it) on top of 2.20.1, to include them in Buildroot, which is a good way of trying getting to try them on top of 2.20.1 and decide if they will go in a release as well. If you think it would be better to first disable JIT for 32-bit ARM and MIPS when doing the webkitgtk package version bump, and later on re-enabling it with the backpoted changes, please let me know. > > Sorry if I wasn't being very clear here O:-) > > > > If you think enabling the package for AArch64 deserves its own separate > > commit, let me know and I'll split it back. FWIW, I've been trying AArch64 > > builds for the RaspberryPi 3, and they work fine; we also use them at work > > for a couple of clients as well without issues. > > I think it's OK to enable on AArch64 at the same time as you do the > bump. It could be done in separate commits (each change stands on its > own), but I'm fine with those changes being in the same commit. > > Best regards, Most likely I will keep it along with the version bump, then. Thanks for all the feedback! -- Adri?n ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: not available URL: