[Buildroot] [PATCH RFC] Fix avr32 build using internal toolchain

[Simon Dawson]

Hi Thomas,

On 19 January 2013 10:38, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I don't remember, do you have a specific interest in the AVR32
> architecture support?

Yes, I'm using Buildroot for the continued development of a system
based on the Atmel ap7000. This system will be under
development/support for at least the next few years, I would imagine.

> The thing is that apparently, the AVR32 gcc version we're using (gcc
> 4.2.x) doesn't build anymore with recent host gcc version (I think
> Gustavo tested with gcc 4.6, and it doesn't build). Generally speaking,
> the fact that we have to use old, patched, versions of gcc, binutils and
> uClibc is severely problematic to support this architecture on the long
> run.

Yes, I understand that the avr32 toolchain is in a bit of a mess. I'm
using host gcc version 4.6 without problems; from memory, I think it's
4.7 that doesn't work --- I might have misremembered 'though...

> Back in November, I got in touch with the people who were active on the
> AVR32 architecture a few years back (Hans-Christian Egtvedt and Håvard
> Skinnemoen), but they no longer work for Atmel and therefore don't know
> what Atmel plans are regarding the AVR32 architecture.

Yes, I think we discussed this briefly at the Buildroot Developer Days
in Barcelona. My understanding is that avr32 is regarded
semi-officially as an end-of-life architecture. Atmel technical
support are, for the time being, still dealing with support queries
for avr32.

> Therefore, I'm wondering if we shouldn't mark this architecture as
> deprecated.

>From my own perspective, I'd rather keep the avr32 support in
Buildroot for now. I don't know how many other people are using the
architecture --- not that many, I suspect. Would that be a major
problem?

I don't know how much effort would be involved in migrating to newer
gcc, binutils and uClibc; have you any idea?

Simon.