| Message ID | 20180505105844.5278-1-romain.naour@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | package/gcc: add support for gcc 8.1 | expand |
Hello Romain, Thanks for working on this! On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:58:44 +0200, Romain Naour wrote: > Remove 0860-cilk-fix-build-without-wchar.patch since cilk has > been removed from gcc. > > Rebase 0900-remove-selftests.patch on gcc 8.1.0 > > Remove upstream patches 0001-m68k-coldfire-pr68467.patch and > 0892-microblaze-Revert.patch. > > Use bz2 release tarball only for gcc 4.9 since all other version > now use xz tarball. > > Runtime tested on x86_64 with binutils 2.30, gcc 8.1.0, > kernel headers 4.14 and glibc 2.27. > > Buildtime tested with glibc with all supported architectures. > > Buildtime tested on x86_64 with musl and uClibc-ng > > Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> > Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> > --- > package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch | 29 ++++ > package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch | 45 +++++++ > package/gcc/8.1.0/0003-remove-selftests.patch | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++ > package/gcc/Config.in.host | 7 + > package/gcc/gcc.hash | 2 + > package/gcc/gcc.mk | 10 +- > toolchain/Config.in | 5 + > .../toolchain-external-custom/Config.in.options | 6 + Could you split up this patch in several patches: - One adding the toolchain/Config.in contents for gcc 8.x - One adding support for gcc 8.x in package/gcc - One adding support for gcc 8.x in toolchain/toolchain-external It would be good if you could also add a patch to update our default gcc version to 7.x. Maybe it's also time to remove gcc 4.9 and gcc 5.x ? I know when gcc 7.x was added and we changed to gcc 6.x as the default, we should have removed gcc 4.9, but there was some opposition to this. Hopefully we can do this removal now ? > diff --git a/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..7d0f710945 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ > +From 07475e62626e246df07f35c4427b207c480b1f95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > +From: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> > +Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 22:36:15 +0200 > +Subject: [PATCH 1/3] uclibc-conf Use "git format-patch -N" when generating patches to not have numbering inside the patches. Thanks! Thomas
Hi Thomas, Le 20/05/2018 à 12:45, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit : > Hello Romain, > > Thanks for working on this! > > On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:58:44 +0200, Romain Naour wrote: >> Remove 0860-cilk-fix-build-without-wchar.patch since cilk has >> been removed from gcc. >> >> Rebase 0900-remove-selftests.patch on gcc 8.1.0 >> >> Remove upstream patches 0001-m68k-coldfire-pr68467.patch and >> 0892-microblaze-Revert.patch. >> >> Use bz2 release tarball only for gcc 4.9 since all other version >> now use xz tarball. >> >> Runtime tested on x86_64 with binutils 2.30, gcc 8.1.0, >> kernel headers 4.14 and glibc 2.27. >> >> Buildtime tested with glibc with all supported architectures. >> >> Buildtime tested on x86_64 with musl and uClibc-ng >> >> Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> >> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> >> --- >> package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch | 29 ++++ >> package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch | 45 +++++++ >> package/gcc/8.1.0/0003-remove-selftests.patch | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> package/gcc/Config.in.host | 7 + >> package/gcc/gcc.hash | 2 + >> package/gcc/gcc.mk | 10 +- >> toolchain/Config.in | 5 + >> .../toolchain-external-custom/Config.in.options | 6 + > > Could you split up this patch in several patches: > > - One adding the toolchain/Config.in contents for gcc 8.x > > - One adding support for gcc 8.x in package/gcc > > - One adding support for gcc 8.x in toolchain/toolchain-external Previous gcc bump was done in one patch: (gcc 7) https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=4314161159ce1556e8c14d1d2e22aaf2a8618b82 (gcc 6) https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=519d83bfa0442439026db4e71e605a5c1347e566 I wanted to use the same method but ok I'll split this patch if you want. > > It would be good if you could also add a patch to update our default > gcc version to 7.x. Ok, this can be done in a followup patch. > > Maybe it's also time to remove gcc 4.9 and gcc 5.x ? I know when gcc > 7.x was added and we changed to gcc 6.x as the default, we should have > removed gcc 4.9, but there was some opposition to this. Hopefully we > can do this removal now ? See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. Dagg, what do we do for this board? > >> diff --git a/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000000..7d0f710945 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch >> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ >> +From 07475e62626e246df07f35c4427b207c480b1f95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> +From: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> >> +Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 22:36:15 +0200 >> +Subject: [PATCH 1/3] uclibc-conf > > Use "git format-patch -N" when generating patches to not have numbering > inside the patches. Ok, sometime I forgot to add -N when generating a patch series for a package... I'll fix. Best regards, Romain > > Thanks! > > Thomas >
Thomas, Le 21/05/2018 à 17:45, Romain Naour a écrit : > Hi Thomas, > > Le 20/05/2018 à 12:45, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit : >> Hello Romain, >> >> Thanks for working on this! >> >> On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:58:44 +0200, Romain Naour wrote: >>> Remove 0860-cilk-fix-build-without-wchar.patch since cilk has >>> been removed from gcc. >>> >>> Rebase 0900-remove-selftests.patch on gcc 8.1.0 >>> >>> Remove upstream patches 0001-m68k-coldfire-pr68467.patch and >>> 0892-microblaze-Revert.patch. >>> >>> Use bz2 release tarball only for gcc 4.9 since all other version >>> now use xz tarball. >>> >>> Runtime tested on x86_64 with binutils 2.30, gcc 8.1.0, >>> kernel headers 4.14 and glibc 2.27. >>> >>> Buildtime tested with glibc with all supported architectures. >>> >>> Buildtime tested on x86_64 with musl and uClibc-ng >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> >>> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> >>> --- >>> package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch | 29 ++++ >>> package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch | 45 +++++++ Btw, why we still need these two patches? It seems that they are in the gcc package since gcc 4.2.4 (i.e ten years) For 0001-uclibc-conf.patch, why we need to add a new case for i686-pc-linux-uclibc? what's about other target and libc (musl)? I believe this can be removed. 0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch was added in 2007 [1] for gcc 4.1.2. I believe arm soft-float should work out of the box now. Best regards, Romain [1] https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=b2683e4d2c59cb3e8a5fe0e2500ac6625e8f60bf
>>>>> "Romain" == Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> writes: Hi, > See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 > I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since > it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. > Dagg, what do we do for this board? I believe that mainline support for this board is fairly far, so if that is the only thing keeping 4.9 around I think we can drop it.
Hello, On Mon, 21 May 2018 23:52:27 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > I believe that mainline support for this board is fairly far, so if that > is the only thing keeping 4.9 around I think we can drop it. I agree. We can't keep gcc 4.9 just for the sake of one board. Thomas
Greetings Romain, > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:45 PM > From: "Romain Naour" <romain.naour@gmail.com> > To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> > Cc: buildroot@buildroot.org, "Dagg Stompler" <daggs@gmx.com>, "Arnout Vandecappelle" <arnout@mind.be> > Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/gcc: add support for gcc 8.1 > > Hi Thomas, > > Le 20/05/2018 à 12:45, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit : > > Hello Romain, > > > > Thanks for working on this! > > > > On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:58:44 +0200, Romain Naour wrote: > >> Remove 0860-cilk-fix-build-without-wchar.patch since cilk has > >> been removed from gcc. > >> > >> Rebase 0900-remove-selftests.patch on gcc 8.1.0 > >> > >> Remove upstream patches 0001-m68k-coldfire-pr68467.patch and > >> 0892-microblaze-Revert.patch. > >> > >> Use bz2 release tarball only for gcc 4.9 since all other version > >> now use xz tarball. > >> > >> Runtime tested on x86_64 with binutils 2.30, gcc 8.1.0, > >> kernel headers 4.14 and glibc 2.27. > >> > >> Buildtime tested with glibc with all supported architectures. > >> > >> Buildtime tested on x86_64 with musl and uClibc-ng > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> > >> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> > >> --- > >> package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch | 29 ++++ > >> package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch | 45 +++++++ > >> package/gcc/8.1.0/0003-remove-selftests.patch | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++ > >> package/gcc/Config.in.host | 7 + > >> package/gcc/gcc.hash | 2 + > >> package/gcc/gcc.mk | 10 +- > >> toolchain/Config.in | 5 + > >> .../toolchain-external-custom/Config.in.options | 6 + > > > > Could you split up this patch in several patches: > > > > - One adding the toolchain/Config.in contents for gcc 8.x > > > > - One adding support for gcc 8.x in package/gcc > > > > - One adding support for gcc 8.x in toolchain/toolchain-external > > Previous gcc bump was done in one patch: > > (gcc 7) > https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=4314161159ce1556e8c14d1d2e22aaf2a8618b82 > (gcc 6) > https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=519d83bfa0442439026db4e71e605a5c1347e566 > > I wanted to use the same method but ok I'll split this patch if you want. > > > > > It would be good if you could also add a patch to update our default > > gcc version to 7.x. > > Ok, this can be done in a followup patch. > > > > > Maybe it's also time to remove gcc 4.9 and gcc 5.x ? I know when gcc > > 7.x was added and we changed to gcc 6.x as the default, we should have > > removed gcc 4.9, but there was some opposition to this. Hopefully we > > can do this removal now ? > > See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 > > I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since > it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. > Dagg, what do we do for this board? > > > > >> diff --git a/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000000..7d0f710945 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch > >> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ > >> +From 07475e62626e246df07f35c4427b207c480b1f95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> +From: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> > >> +Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 22:36:15 +0200 > >> +Subject: [PATCH 1/3] uclibc-conf > > > > Use "git format-patch -N" when generating patches to not have numbering > > inside the patches. > > Ok, sometime I forgot to add -N when generating a patch series for a package... > I'll fix. > > Best regards, > Romain > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Thomas > > > > the main issue with gcc for this board's vendor's support is uboot, the vendor's uboot supports gcc 5.x for sometime now but I was never been able to make it boot. latest vendor's uboot supports gcc 7.x but I'm unable to test is as I've misplaced both my ac adapter and serial when I've had to clear out my work room. if it blocks, you can what ever you feel is right. Dagg.
Greetings Peter, > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 12:52 AM > From: "Peter Korsgaard" <peter@korsgaard.com> > To: "Romain Naour" <romain.naour@gmail.com> > Cc: "Dagg Stompler" <daggs@gmx.com>, "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>, buildroot@buildroot.org > Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/gcc: add support for gcc 8.1 > > >>>>> "Romain" == Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> writes: > > Hi, > > > See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 > > > I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since > > it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. > > Dagg, what do we do for this board? > > I believe that mainline support for this board is fairly far, so if that > is the only thing keeping 4.9 around I think we can drop it. > afaik, the mainline support for this board lacks proper vpu support. in addition, due to the patchwork issue, my last bunch of patches of mainline support were lost and got ignored so I've decided to stop pursuing this matter. as said in another mail here, I'm unable to boot the board as I've misplaced the ac adapter, I can try looking for it again but it won't be until the weekend. you said a while ago you have access to such board, if you have time to bump the vendor kernel and uboot revs to latest and test if it works, maybe this issue can be resolved without dropping support for this board. Dagg.
>>>>> "daggs" == daggs <daggs@gmx.com> writes: Hi, > afaik, the mainline support for this board lacks proper vpu support. Correct, but that shouldn't be a blocker for a Buildroot defconfig? > in addition, due to the patchwork issue, my last bunch of patches of > mainline support were lost and got ignored so I've decided to stop > pursuing this matter. :/ > as said in another mail here, I'm unable to boot the board as I've > misplaced the ac adapter, I can try looking for it again but it won't > be until the weekend. > you said a while ago you have access to such board, if you have time > to bump the vendor kernel and uboot revs to latest and test if it > works, maybe this issue can be resolved without dropping support for > this board. I don't have an odroidc2, but I know some colleagues of mine do. If needed, I can try to temporarily borrow one.
Hello, On Tue, 22 May 2018 09:18:32 +0200, daggs wrote: > afaik, the mainline support for this board lacks proper vpu support. > in addition, due to the patchwork issue, my last bunch of patches of mainline support were lost and got ignored so I've decided to stop pursuing this matter. The patchwork issues are fixed now, so you can resend any patch that got "lost". Best regards, Thomas
On 21-05-18 23:52, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >>>>>> "Romain" == Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> writes: > > Hi, > > > See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 > > > I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since > > it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. > > Dagg, what do we do for this board? > > I believe that mainline support for this board is fairly far, so if that > is the only thing keeping 4.9 around I think we can drop it. I voted for keeping 4.9 because quite a few chips are stuck with ancient vendor kernels and U-Boot. For the kernel I'd accept it, but for U-Boot it's generally more difficult to go to an upstream version, there is not much of a security reason to bump U-Boot, and backporting the compiler.h changes is not entirely trivial. I think keeping the 4.9 option makes the out-of-the-box experience for people who are stuck in this situation easier. Also, "maintaining" the 4.9 version really doesn't pose much of an overhead. At least as long as we support multiple gcc versions, and there are no issues building gcc 4.9 on recent distros. So I'm still voting for keeping 4.9, at least until it starts breaking on recent distros. If we remove something, remove 5. Regards, Arnout
Hello, On Mon, 21 May 2018 17:45:02 +0200, Romain Naour wrote: > > Could you split up this patch in several patches: > > > > - One adding the toolchain/Config.in contents for gcc 8.x > > > > - One adding support for gcc 8.x in package/gcc > > > > - One adding support for gcc 8.x in toolchain/toolchain-external > > Previous gcc bump was done in one patch: > > (gcc 7) > https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=4314161159ce1556e8c14d1d2e22aaf2a8618b82 > (gcc 6) > https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=519d83bfa0442439026db4e71e605a5c1347e566 > > I wanted to use the same method but ok I'll split this patch if you want. I think it makes sense to split it up. > > It would be good if you could also add a patch to update our default > > gcc version to 7.x. > > Ok, this can be done in a followup patch. Yes it _should_ be done in a separate patch. > > Maybe it's also time to remove gcc 4.9 and gcc 5.x ? I know when gcc > > 7.x was added and we changed to gcc 6.x as the default, we should have > > removed gcc 4.9, but there was some opposition to this. Hopefully we > > can do this removal now ? > > See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 > > I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since > it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. > Dagg, what do we do for this board? So the conclusion from Arnout is to keep 4.9, but to remove gcc 5. I'm fine with this, so let's do this. Thanks! Thomas
Arnout, All, Le 23/05/2018 à 00:08, Arnout Vandecappelle a écrit : > > > On 21-05-18 23:52, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >>>>>>> "Romain" == Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> writes: >> >> Hi, >> >> > See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: >> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 >> >> > I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since >> > it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. >> > Dagg, what do we do for this board? >> >> I believe that mainline support for this board is fairly far, so if that >> is the only thing keeping 4.9 around I think we can drop it. > > I voted for keeping 4.9 because quite a few chips are stuck with ancient vendor > kernels and U-Boot. For the kernel I'd accept it, but for U-Boot it's generally > more difficult to go to an upstream version, there is not much of a security > reason to bump U-Boot, and backporting the compiler.h changes is not entirely > trivial. I think keeping the 4.9 option makes the out-of-the-box experience for > people who are stuck in this situation easier. > > Also, "maintaining" the 4.9 version really doesn't pose much of an overhead. At > least as long as we support multiple gcc versions, and there are no issues > building gcc 4.9 on recent distros. gcc 4.9 still build with gcc 8 as host compiler but with a lot of warning. Note that we don't keep any specific version of Binutils for gcc 4.9.x. It's not sure that recent Binutils version will be compatible with gcc 4.9.x. > > So I'm still voting for keeping 4.9, at least until it starts breaking on > recent distros. If we remove something, remove 5. Ok Best regards, Romain > > Regards, > Arnout >
Hi Thomas, Le 23/05/2018 à 10:29, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit : > Hello, > > On Mon, 21 May 2018 17:45:02 +0200, Romain Naour wrote: > >>> Could you split up this patch in several patches: >>> >>> - One adding the toolchain/Config.in contents for gcc 8.x >>> >>> - One adding support for gcc 8.x in package/gcc >>> >>> - One adding support for gcc 8.x in toolchain/toolchain-external >> >> Previous gcc bump was done in one patch: >> >> (gcc 7) >> https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=4314161159ce1556e8c14d1d2e22aaf2a8618b82 >> (gcc 6) >> https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=519d83bfa0442439026db4e71e605a5c1347e566 >> >> I wanted to use the same method but ok I'll split this patch if you want. > > I think it makes sense to split it up. OK > >>> It would be good if you could also add a patch to update our default >>> gcc version to 7.x. >> >> Ok, this can be done in a followup patch. > > Yes it _should_ be done in a separate patch. OK, I'll add this patch in v2. > >>> Maybe it's also time to remove gcc 4.9 and gcc 5.x ? I know when gcc >>> 7.x was added and we changed to gcc 6.x as the default, we should have >>> removed gcc 4.9, but there was some opposition to this. Hopefully we >>> can do this removal now ? >> >> See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 >> >> I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since >> it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. >> Dagg, what do we do for this board? > > So the conclusion from Arnout is to keep 4.9, but to remove gcc 5. > I'm fine with this, so let's do this. OK. Also, what do we do for gcc patches we have since a long time ? see http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2018-May/221966.html Best regards, Romain > > Thanks! > > Thomas >
On 23-05-18 22:19, Romain Naour wrote: > Arnout, All, > > Le 23/05/2018 à 00:08, Arnout Vandecappelle a écrit : >> >> >> On 21-05-18 23:52, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >>>>>>>> "Romain" == Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> > See the reply from Arnout and Dagg for gcc 4.9: >>> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087 >>> >>> > I'm not sure that the odroidc2 defconfig is able to build with gcc >= 4.9 since >>> > it's stuck at kernel odroidc2-3.14.y and uboot odroidc2-v2015.01. >>> > Dagg, what do we do for this board? >>> >>> I believe that mainline support for this board is fairly far, so if that >>> is the only thing keeping 4.9 around I think we can drop it. >> >> I voted for keeping 4.9 because quite a few chips are stuck with ancient vendor >> kernels and U-Boot. For the kernel I'd accept it, but for U-Boot it's generally >> more difficult to go to an upstream version, there is not much of a security >> reason to bump U-Boot, and backporting the compiler.h changes is not entirely >> trivial. I think keeping the 4.9 option makes the out-of-the-box experience for >> people who are stuck in this situation easier. >> >> Also, "maintaining" the 4.9 version really doesn't pose much of an overhead. At >> least as long as we support multiple gcc versions, and there are no issues >> building gcc 4.9 on recent distros. > > gcc 4.9 still build with gcc 8 as host compiler but with a lot of warning. > > Note that we don't keep any specific version of Binutils for gcc 4.9.x. > It's not sure that recent Binutils version will be compatible with gcc 4.9.x. I don't see a reason why recent binutils shouldn't be compatible with old gcc. People are still successfully building gcc 2.95... Regards, Arnout > >> >> So I'm still voting for keeping 4.9, at least until it starts breaking on >> recent distros. If we remove something, remove 5. > > Ok > > Best regards, > Romain > >> >> Regards, >> Arnout >> >
On 21-05-18 18:42, Romain Naour wrote: > Thomas, > > Le 21/05/2018 à 17:45, Romain Naour a écrit : >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Le 20/05/2018 à 12:45, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit : >>> Hello Romain, >>> >>> Thanks for working on this! >>> >>> On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:58:44 +0200, Romain Naour wrote: >>>> Remove 0860-cilk-fix-build-without-wchar.patch since cilk has >>>> been removed from gcc. >>>> >>>> Rebase 0900-remove-selftests.patch on gcc 8.1.0 >>>> >>>> Remove upstream patches 0001-m68k-coldfire-pr68467.patch and >>>> 0892-microblaze-Revert.patch. >>>> >>>> Use bz2 release tarball only for gcc 4.9 since all other version >>>> now use xz tarball. >>>> >>>> Runtime tested on x86_64 with binutils 2.30, gcc 8.1.0, >>>> kernel headers 4.14 and glibc 2.27. >>>> >>>> Buildtime tested with glibc with all supported architectures. >>>> >>>> Buildtime tested on x86_64 with musl and uClibc-ng >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> >>>> --- >>>> package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch | 29 ++++ >>>> package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch | 45 +++++++ > > Btw, why we still need these two patches? > It seems that they are in the gcc package since gcc 4.2.4 (i.e ten years) > > For 0001-uclibc-conf.patch, why we need to add a new case for > i686-pc-linux-uclibc? what's about other target and libc (musl)? > I believe this can be removed. Especially since it's patching contrib/regression, which is not used at all during the build... I'd say, remove the patch, build for i686-uclibc, and see if things still work (preferably with a qemu-user runtime test). > 0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch was added in 2007 [1] for gcc 4.1.2. > I believe arm soft-float should work out of the box now. The patch refers to https://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2008-05/msg00009.html which says "Unfortuantely, arm-gcc defaults to generating code for armv5t." Since we always explicitly pass the target CPU for ARM, the default CPU shouldn't matter. So, again, a runtime qemu-user test for arm920t would confirm that the patch isn't needed. If both patches are indeed unneeded, I'd only remove them for GCC 8, not the earlier ones. They're not really hurting the earlier versions at the moment. By the way, I think patch 0003 can also be removed. We only need it because we exclude the testsuite in the extraction, to save 252MB of disk space (reducing the build directory size from 850 to 600MB). I don't think it's worthwhile carrying a patch just for that. Also, since GCC 7, the libjava directory no longer exists. So I'd just eliminate that HOST_GCC_EXCLUDES. Thomas, you added this feature back in 00e9b1e4f7, what do you think? Regards, Arnout > > Best regards, > Romain > > [1] > https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=b2683e4d2c59cb3e8a5fe0e2500ac6625e8f60bf >
Hello, On Thu, 24 May 2018 00:08:56 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > 0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch was added in 2007 [1] for gcc 4.1.2. > > I believe arm soft-float should work out of the box now. > > The patch refers to https://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2008-05/msg00009.html > which says "Unfortuantely, arm-gcc defaults to generating code for armv5t." > Since we always explicitly pass the target CPU for ARM, the default CPU > shouldn't matter. So, again, a runtime qemu-user test for arm920t would confirm > that the patch isn't needed. > > > If both patches are indeed unneeded, I'd only remove them for GCC 8, not the > earlier ones. They're not really hurting the earlier versions at the moment. > > By the way, I think patch 0003 can also be removed. We only need it because we > exclude the testsuite in the extraction, to save 252MB of disk space (reducing > the build directory size from 850 to 600MB). I don't think it's worthwhile > carrying a patch just for that. Also, since GCC 7, the libjava directory no > longer exists. So I'd just eliminate that HOST_GCC_EXCLUDES. Thomas, you added > this feature back in 00e9b1e4f7, what do you think? No strong feeling about it. It's still 250 MB of saved disk space, and also the time of extraction (doubled, once for gcc-initial, once for gcc-final). Back then, I was on a quest trying to reduce the build time, and this was part of it. There is obviously a trade off between efficiency and ease of maintenance here, and whether those tweaks are useful enough to warrant the additional maintenance burden, I don't know. Best regards, Thomas
diff --git a/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..7d0f710945 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +From 07475e62626e246df07f35c4427b207c480b1f95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> +Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 22:36:15 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH 1/3] uclibc-conf + +[Romain: convert to git patch] +Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> +--- + contrib/regression/objs-gcc.sh | 4 ++++ + 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) + +diff --git a/contrib/regression/objs-gcc.sh b/contrib/regression/objs-gcc.sh +index 60b0497fea2..6dc7eadff36 100755 +--- a/contrib/regression/objs-gcc.sh ++++ b/contrib/regression/objs-gcc.sh +@@ -106,6 +106,10 @@ if [ $H_REAL_TARGET = $H_REAL_HOST -a $H_REAL_TARGET = i686-pc-linux-gnu ] + then + make all-gdb all-dejagnu all-ld || exit 1 + make install-gdb install-dejagnu install-ld || exit 1 ++elif [ $H_REAL_TARGET = $H_REAL_HOST -a $H_REAL_TARGET = i686-pc-linux-uclibc ] ++ then ++ make all-gdb all-dejagnu all-ld || exit 1 ++ make install-gdb install-dejagnu install-ld || exit 1 + elif [ $H_REAL_TARGET = $H_REAL_HOST ] ; then + make bootstrap || exit 1 + make install || exit 1 +-- +2.14.3 + diff --git a/package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..61df733c1d --- /dev/null +++ b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +From f016160e98472084c4db4848e0c5d6e68f7d75d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> +Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 22:46:18 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH 2/3] arm softfloat libgcc + +[Romain: convert to git patch] +Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> +--- + gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h | 2 +- + libgcc/config/arm/t-linux | 7 ++++++- + 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h b/gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h +index cfcd9cb1a5c..b8a9a9ca4ae 100644 +--- a/gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h ++++ b/gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h +@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ + %{shared:-lc} \ + %{!shared:%{profile:-lc_p}%{!profile:-lc}}" + +-#define LIBGCC_SPEC "%{mfloat-abi=soft*:-lfloat} -lgcc" ++#define LIBGCC_SPEC "-lgcc" + + #define GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER "/lib/ld-linux.so.2" + +diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-linux b/libgcc/config/arm/t-linux +index 3d520decafb..e7bc042d4e4 100644 +--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-linux ++++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-linux +@@ -1,6 +1,11 @@ + LIB1ASMSRC = arm/lib1funcs.S + LIB1ASMFUNCS = _udivsi3 _divsi3 _umodsi3 _modsi3 _dvmd_lnx _clzsi2 _clzdi2 \ +- _ctzsi2 _arm_addsubdf3 _arm_addsubsf3 ++ _ctzsi2 _arm_addsubdf3 _arm_addsubsf3 \ ++ _arm_addsubdf3 _arm_addsubsf3 \ ++ _arm_negdf2 _arm_muldivdf3 _arm_cmpdf2 _arm_unorddf2 \ ++ _arm_fixdfsi _arm_fixunsdfsi _arm_truncdfsf2 \ ++ _arm_negsf2 _arm_muldivsf3 _arm_cmpsf2 _arm_unordsf2 \ ++ _arm_fixsfsi _arm_fixunssfsi + + # Just for these, we omit the frame pointer since it makes such a big + # difference. +-- +2.14.3 + diff --git a/package/gcc/8.1.0/0003-remove-selftests.patch b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0003-remove-selftests.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..2caddc15f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/gcc/8.1.0/0003-remove-selftests.patch @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +From 0b33b1afd99500b8d4f857f0abd00cea6fe08ea6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> +Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 00:37:06 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH 3/3] remove selftests + +When the gcc archive is extracted by the gcc.mk, the gcc/testsuite +is excluded: + +HOST_GCC_EXCLUDES = \ + libjava/* libgo/* \ + gcc/testsuite/* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/* + +The new Makefile target from the "Selftest framework" [1] added a dependency +on the gcc/testsuite/Makefile. +Revert partially the commit [1] to allow building gcc without selftest. + +[1] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/99b4f3a2d5bf2c137de9731e27b483eb6b462fd9 + +[Rebased on gcc 8.1] +Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> +--- + gcc/Makefile.in | 83 ++++----------------------------------------------------- + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in +index 20bee0494b1..1ae5fb382b5 100644 +--- a/gcc/Makefile.in ++++ b/gcc/Makefile.in +@@ -1610,14 +1610,13 @@ OBJS-libcommon = diagnostic.o diagnostic-color.o diagnostic-show-locus.o \ + edit-context.o \ + pretty-print.o intl.o \ + sbitmap.o \ +- vec.o input.o version.o hash-table.o ggc-none.o memory-block.o \ +- selftest.o selftest-diagnostic.o ++ vec.o input.o version.o hash-table.o ggc-none.o memory-block.o + + # Objects in libcommon-target.a, used by drivers and by the core + # compiler and containing target-dependent code. + OBJS-libcommon-target = $(common_out_object_file) prefix.o params.o \ + opts.o opts-common.o options.o vec.o hooks.o common/common-targhooks.o \ +- hash-table.o file-find.o spellcheck.o selftest.o ++ hash-table.o file-find.o spellcheck.o + + # This lists all host objects for the front ends. + ALL_HOST_FRONTEND_OBJS = $(foreach v,$(CONFIG_LANGUAGES),$($(v)_OBJS)) +@@ -1894,10 +1893,10 @@ config.status: $(srcdir)/configure $(srcdir)/config.gcc + quickstrap: all + cd $(toplevel_builddir) && $(MAKE) all-target-libgcc + +-all.internal: start.encap rest.encap doc selftest ++all.internal: start.encap rest.encap doc + # This is what to compile if making a cross-compiler. + all.cross: native gcc-cross$(exeext) cpp$(exeext) specs \ +- libgcc-support lang.all.cross doc selftest @GENINSRC@ srcextra ++ libgcc-support lang.all.cross doc @GENINSRC@ srcextra + # This is what must be made before installing GCC and converting libraries. + start.encap: native xgcc$(exeext) cpp$(exeext) specs \ + libgcc-support lang.start.encap @GENINSRC@ srcextra +@@ -1917,78 +1916,6 @@ endif + # This does the things that can't be done on the host machine. + rest.cross: specs + +-# GCC's selftests. +-# Specify a dummy input file to placate the driver. +-# Specify -nostdinc to work around missing WIND_BASE environment variable +-# required for *-wrs-vxworks-* targets. +-# Specify -o /dev/null so the output of -S is discarded. More importantly +-# It does not try to create a file with the name "null.s" on POSIX and +-# "nul.s" on Windows. Because on Windows "nul" is a reserved file name. +-# Beware that /dev/null is not available to mingw tools, so directly use +-# "nul" instead of "/dev/null" if we're building on a mingw machine. +-# Specify the path to gcc/testsuite/selftests within the srcdir +-# as an argument to -fself-test. +-DEVNULL=$(if $(findstring mingw,$(build)),nul,/dev/null) +-SELFTEST_FLAGS = -nostdinc $(DEVNULL) -S -o $(DEVNULL) \ +- -fself-test=$(srcdir)/testsuite/selftests +- +-C_SELFTEST_FLAGS = -xc $(SELFTEST_FLAGS) +-CPP_SELFTEST_FLAGS = -xc++ $(SELFTEST_FLAGS) +- +-SELFTEST_DEPS = $(GCC_PASSES) stmp-int-hdrs $(srcdir)/testsuite/selftests +- +-C_SELFTEST_DEPS = cc1$(exeext) $(SELFTEST_DEPS) +-CPP_SELFTEST_DEPS = cc1plus$(exeext) $(SELFTEST_DEPS) +- +-# Run the selftests during the build once we have a driver and the frontend, +-# so that self-test failures are caught as early as possible. +-# Use "s-selftest-FE" to ensure that we only run the selftests if the +-# driver, frontend, or selftest data change. +-.PHONY: selftest +- +-# By default, only run the selftests within the C frontend +-selftest: s-selftest-c +- +-# C selftests +-s-selftest-c: $(C_SELFTEST_DEPS) +- $(GCC_FOR_TARGET) $(C_SELFTEST_FLAGS) +- $(STAMP) $@ +- +-# Convenience methods for running C selftests under gdb: +-.PHONY: selftest-c-gdb +-selftest-c-gdb: $(C_SELFTEST_DEPS) +- $(GCC_FOR_TARGET) $(C_SELFTEST_FLAGS) \ +- -wrapper gdb,--args +- +-.PHONY: selftest-gdb +-selftest-gdb: selftest-c-gdb +- +-# Convenience methods for running C selftests under valgrind: +-.PHONY: selftest-c-valgrind +-selftest-c-valgrind: $(C_SELFTEST_DEPS) +- $(GCC_FOR_TARGET) $(C_SELFTEST_FLAGS) \ +- -wrapper valgrind,--leak-check=full +- +-.PHONY: selftest-valgrind +-selftest-valgrind: selftest-c-valgrind +- +-# C++ selftests +-s-selftest-c++: $(CPP_SELFTEST_DEPS) +- $(GCC_FOR_TARGET) $(CPP_SELFTEST_FLAGS) +- $(STAMP) $@ +- +-# Convenience method for running C++ selftests under gdb: +-.PHONY: selftest-c++-gdb +-selftest-c++-gdb: $(CPP_SELFTEST_DEPS) +- $(GCC_FOR_TARGET) $(CPP_SELFTEST_FLAGS) \ +- -wrapper gdb,--args +- +-# Convenience method for running C++ selftests under valgrind: +-.PHONY: selftest-c++-valgrind +-selftest-c++-valgrind: $(CPP_SELFTEST_DEPS) +- $(GCC_FOR_TARGET) $(CPP_SELFTEST_FLAGS) \ +- -wrapper valgrind,--leak-check=full +- + # Recompile all the language-independent object files. + # This is used only if the user explicitly asks for it. + compilations: $(BACKEND) +@@ -2142,7 +2069,7 @@ gcc-nm.c: gcc-ar.c + cp $^ $@ + + COLLECT2_OBJS = collect2.o collect2-aix.o tlink.o vec.o ggc-none.o \ +- collect-utils.o file-find.o hash-table.o selftest.o ++ collect-utils.o file-find.o hash-table.o + COLLECT2_LIBS = @COLLECT2_LIBS@ + collect2$(exeext): $(COLLECT2_OBJS) $(LIBDEPS) + # Don't try modifying collect2 (aka ld) in place--it might be linking this. +-- +2.14.3 + diff --git a/package/gcc/Config.in.host b/package/gcc/Config.in.host index 7c08fb3596..ae91b5c0c4 100644 --- a/package/gcc/Config.in.host +++ b/package/gcc/Config.in.host @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ config BR2_GCC_VERSION_7_X depends on !BR2_or1k select BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_7 +config BR2_GCC_VERSION_8_X + bool "gcc 8.x" + # Broken or unsupported architectures + depends on !BR2_or1k + select BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_8 + endchoice config BR2_GCC_SUPPORTS_FINEGRAINEDMTUNE @@ -73,6 +79,7 @@ config BR2_GCC_VERSION default "5.5.0" if BR2_GCC_VERSION_5_X default "6.4.0" if BR2_GCC_VERSION_6_X default "7.3.0" if BR2_GCC_VERSION_7_X + default "8.1.0" if BR2_GCC_VERSION_8_X default "arc-2018.03-rc1" if BR2_GCC_VERSION_ARC default "or1k-musl-5.4.0-20170218" if BR2_GCC_VERSION_OR1K diff --git a/package/gcc/gcc.hash b/package/gcc/gcc.hash index d9a651b547..a2efe551ac 100644 --- a/package/gcc/gcc.hash +++ b/package/gcc/gcc.hash @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ sha512 670ff52c2ae12c7852c12987e91798c5aa8bd6daf21f0d6e0cd57a4aa59cc4f06a837fe7 sha512 02c60e54527c7adf584798d5251f8a0b80c93d5deafce82501b2c28e6692e0bd783927bbfc4bc527a863c0cccc025150a34740a9e29badb02d4b48e56a8aba90 gcc-6.4.0.tar.xz # From ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-7.3.0/sha512.sum sha512 ad41a7e4584e40e92cdf860bc0288500fbaf5dfb7e8c3fcabe9eba809c87bcfa85b46c19c19921b0cdf6d05483faede8287bb9ea120c0d1559449a70e602c8d4 gcc-7.3.0.tar.xz +# From ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-8.1.0/sha512.sum +sha512 c96246f34a7aeb404c4525b754dc7f7708a18e06271aadb2b32fef00e6e0940f584e52430bfe2ab01e699c93e3cb418adc113d2622fa826facbec0ec8ce3eb2c gcc-8.1.0.tar.xz # Locally calculated (fetched from Github) sha512 16e5f9d1637be9a099a996074dc43803803497965c1eab6c0057f10d193d30dcc405ad852df82c4f8c61b195195ee797b788ba0b235d7b03e4410806ac5f94bc gcc-arc-2018.03-rc1.tar.gz diff --git a/package/gcc/gcc.mk b/package/gcc/gcc.mk index 0afb06a57e..1ae9b7edd9 100644 --- a/package/gcc/gcc.mk +++ b/package/gcc/gcc.mk @@ -18,13 +18,13 @@ GCC_SITE = $(call github,openrisc,or1k-gcc,$(GCC_VERSION)) GCC_SOURCE = gcc-$(GCC_VERSION).tar.gz else GCC_SITE = $(BR2_GNU_MIRROR:/=)/gcc/gcc-$(GCC_VERSION) -# From version 5.5.0, 6.4.0 and 7.2.0 a bz2 release tarball is not +# From version 5.5.0, 6.4.0, 7.2.0 and 8.1.0 a bz2 release tarball is not # provided anymore. Use the xz tarball instead. -ifeq ($(BR2_GCC_VERSION_5_X)$(BR2_GCC_VERSION_6_X)$(BR2_GCC_VERSION_7_X),y) -GCC_SOURCE = gcc-$(GCC_VERSION).tar.xz -else +ifeq ($(BR2_GCC_VERSION_4_9_X),y) GCC_SOURCE = gcc-$(GCC_VERSION).tar.bz2 -endif # BR2_GCC_VERSION_6_X +else +GCC_SOURCE = gcc-$(GCC_VERSION).tar.xz +endif endif # diff --git a/toolchain/Config.in b/toolchain/Config.in index 121ddb4fa4..f33e359c04 100644 --- a/toolchain/Config.in +++ b/toolchain/Config.in @@ -409,10 +409,15 @@ config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_7 bool select BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_6 +config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_8 + bool + select BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_7 + # This order guarantees that the highest version is set, as kconfig # stops affecting a value on the first matching default. config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST string + default "8" if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_8 default "7" if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_7 default "6" if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_6 default "5" if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_5 diff --git a/toolchain/toolchain-external/toolchain-external-custom/Config.in.options b/toolchain/toolchain-external/toolchain-external-custom/Config.in.options index 65d94d0adf..5261165a90 100644 --- a/toolchain/toolchain-external/toolchain-external-custom/Config.in.options +++ b/toolchain/toolchain-external/toolchain-external-custom/Config.in.options @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_CUSTOM_PREFIX choice bool "External toolchain gcc version" + default BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_GCC_8 if BR2_ARCH_NEEDS_GCC_AT_LEAST_8 default BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_GCC_7 if BR2_ARCH_NEEDS_GCC_AT_LEAST_7 default BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_GCC_6 if BR2_ARCH_NEEDS_GCC_AT_LEAST_6 default BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_GCC_5 if BR2_ARCH_NEEDS_GCC_AT_LEAST_5 @@ -37,8 +38,13 @@ choice Set to the gcc version that is used by your external toolchain. +config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_GCC_8 + bool "8.x" + select BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_8 + config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_GCC_7 bool "7.x" + depends on !BR2_ARCH_NEEDS_GCC_AT_LEAST_8 select BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_7 config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_GCC_6
Remove 0860-cilk-fix-build-without-wchar.patch since cilk has been removed from gcc. Rebase 0900-remove-selftests.patch on gcc 8.1.0 Remove upstream patches 0001-m68k-coldfire-pr68467.patch and 0892-microblaze-Revert.patch. Use bz2 release tarball only for gcc 4.9 since all other version now use xz tarball. Runtime tested on x86_64 with binutils 2.30, gcc 8.1.0, kernel headers 4.14 and glibc 2.27. Buildtime tested with glibc with all supported architectures. Buildtime tested on x86_64 with musl and uClibc-ng Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> --- package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch | 29 ++++ package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch | 45 +++++++ package/gcc/8.1.0/0003-remove-selftests.patch | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++ package/gcc/Config.in.host | 7 + package/gcc/gcc.hash | 2 + package/gcc/gcc.mk | 10 +- toolchain/Config.in | 5 + .../toolchain-external-custom/Config.in.options | 6 + 8 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) create mode 100644 package/gcc/8.1.0/0001-uclibc-conf.patch create mode 100644 package/gcc/8.1.0/0002-arm-softfloat-libgcc.patch create mode 100644 package/gcc/8.1.0/0003-remove-selftests.patch