| Message ID | 20200228175814.128730-1-giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] toolchain: introduce BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_21464 | expand |
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:58:13 +0100 Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com> wrote: > On OpenRisc binutils it still present ld bug 21464 leading to a package > protobuf to fail building: > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/908/9084cd777aefe0fa8235514c33767d8640ad7a5b/ > > The bug was already reported and it's been updated: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464 > > Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com> > --- > toolchain/Config.in | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/toolchain/Config.in b/toolchain/Config.in > index 87509f3d64..d71bb2a65a 100644 > --- a/toolchain/Config.in > +++ b/toolchain/Config.in > @@ -81,6 +81,12 @@ config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_19615 > config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_20006 > bool > > +# https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464 > +# Affect toolchains built with binutils 2.31.1, still not fixed. > +config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_21464 > + bool > + default y if BR2_or1k The problem here is that we don't have any Config.in options for binutils versions, so should this problem be fixed one day, we would have no way to update this Config.in option. To be honest, I am starting to wonder if we should keep support for OpenRISC. It's using a now quite old gcc version, and I'm not sure the OpenRISC support has been upstreamed to gcc. Also, we don't have anyone specifically interested in OpenRISC and maintaining it... Thomas
Hi Thomas, All, On 2/28/20 11:19 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:58:13 +0100 > Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com> wrote: > >> On OpenRisc binutils it still present ld bug 21464 leading to a package >> protobuf to fail building: >> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/908/9084cd777aefe0fa8235514c33767d8640ad7a5b/ >> >> The bug was already reported and it's been updated: >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464 >> >> Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com> >> --- >> toolchain/Config.in | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/toolchain/Config.in b/toolchain/Config.in >> index 87509f3d64..d71bb2a65a 100644 >> --- a/toolchain/Config.in >> +++ b/toolchain/Config.in >> @@ -81,6 +81,12 @@ config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_19615 >> config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_20006 >> bool >> >> +# https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464 >> +# Affect toolchains built with binutils 2.31.1, still not fixed. >> +config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_21464 >> + bool >> + default y if BR2_or1k > > The problem here is that we don't have any Config.in options for > binutils versions, so should this problem be fixed one day, we would > have no way to update this Config.in option. So at the moment it would make sense to only specify in protobuf Config.in that or1k is not supported, right? > To be honest, I am starting to wonder if we should keep support for > OpenRISC. It's using a now quite old gcc version, and I'm not sure the > OpenRISC support has been upstreamed to gcc. > > Also, we don't have anyone specifically interested in OpenRISC and > maintaining it... I don't know, is it more used than Microblaze or less? Maybe that could give the idea if keep it or not after all the work with gcc workarounds for Microblaze IMHO.
diff --git a/toolchain/Config.in b/toolchain/Config.in index 87509f3d64..d71bb2a65a 100644 --- a/toolchain/Config.in +++ b/toolchain/Config.in @@ -81,6 +81,12 @@ config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_19615 config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_20006 bool +# https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464 +# Affect toolchains built with binutils 2.31.1, still not fixed. +config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_21464 + bool + default y if BR2_or1k + # Atomic types can be: # - never lock-free # - sometimes lock-free
On OpenRisc binutils it still present ld bug 21464 leading to a package protobuf to fail building: http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/908/9084cd777aefe0fa8235514c33767d8640ad7a5b/ The bug was already reported and it's been updated: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464 Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com> --- toolchain/Config.in | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)