Re: [PATCH] subprojects/berkeley-testfloat-3: Update to fix a problem with compiler warnings

[Alex Bennée]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 10:16, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Update the berkeley-testfloat-3 wrap to include a patch provided by
>> Olaf Hering. This fixes a problem with "control reaches end of non-void
>> function [-Werror=return-type]" compiler warning/errors that are now
>> enabled by default in certain versions of GCC.
>>
>> Reported-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  subprojects/berkeley-testfloat-3.wrap | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> This seems like a reasonable place to ask: should we just pull
> in the testfloat and softfloat repos to be part of the main
> qemu repo?

We've definitely forked the softfloat inside QEMU with the refactor some
time ago. For the testing repos we have lightly modified them to build
the test code but only by a few patches. We might want to keep the
ability to re-base on a new release if say test float gains fp16 or
bfloat16 support. 

> AIUI we've definitively forked both of these, so
> we don't care about trying to make it easy to resync with
> upstream. Having them in separate git repos seems to have some
> clear disadvantages:
>  * it's harder to update them
>  * changes to them can end up skipping the usual code
>    review process, because it's a different patch flow
>    to the normal one
>  * we get extra meson subproject infrastructure to deal with
>
> Are there any reasons to keep them separate ?
>
> thanks
> -- PMM


-- 
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro