[Development] Qt patches to support AArch64 architecture
Lars.Knoll at digia.com
Fri Mar 14 11:43:21 CET 2014
I’m happy to get aarch64 support in. Please add me to the reviews for
stuff that is under BSD or public domain.
On 11/03/14 17:40, "Dmitry Shachnev" <mitya57.ml at gmail.com> wrote:
>Lars: this mail needs your attention.
>AArch64 is a new 64-bit ARM architecture, that will be used in a big
>range of devices,
>from servers to iPhones. See this Wikipedia article for details:
>In Debian/Ubuntu, we have been working to enable AArch64 (aka ARM64)
>support for Qt
>packages. We would like to forward those patches upstream.
>Please see https://bugs.debian.org/735488 for the full discussion and
>https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=200;bug=735488 for the
>We understand that these patches might be seen as a new feature for Qt4,
>reality is that they will get applied on all distributions wanting to
>support arm64, so
>it's better to have them upstreamed.
>Let me describe the current situation and patches briefly:
>**Patches already applied in Git**:
>**Cherry-pick waiting for approval**:
>**Marcin Juszkiewicz’s patches (licensed under either Public Domain or
>[qt4] basic-aarch64-detection.patch [done differently to what was done in
>[qt4] mkspecs.patch (mkspecs for qt4)
>[qtbase and qt4] syscalls.patch (inotify syscalls numbers)
>**Mark Salter’s patch (licensed under BSD)**:
>[qt4] qatomic.patch (atomics for qt4)
>The first issue comes with Marcin’s and Mark’s patches. They are RedHat
>employees, and they cannot sign the CLA. So we asked them to put the
>under a license which could enable us to merge the patches upstream.
>agreed to license his patches under CC0 (aka Public Domain) or simply BSD
>licensed , and Mark under the BSD license .
>The second issue is that Qt may require, only for arm64, -fpermissive to
>This could mean that something is not really finished, but it will get
>ironed out with some time.
>Finally we Debian maintainers are not able to verify the patches ourselves
>*yet*, as we don’t have access to porterboxes. So far only Debian arm64
>have access. Non the less, patches are already applied in Ubuntu (and most
>probably Red Hat too, as the patches come from them), and the current Qt 4
>packages built fine there. If you want testers for the patches, try asking
>Marcin or Wookey (CCed), they should be able to help you.
>I am going to submit the missing patches to Gerrit if you have nothing
>Dmitry Shachnev (on behalf on Debian Qt maintainers)
More information about the Development