[Buildroot] [PATCH] ipkg: needs MMU
Baruch Siach
baruch at tkos.co.il
Tue Jul 26 12:14:29 UTC 2016
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:48:01PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:15:57 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > Right. It's this code from libbb/libbb.h:
> >
> > /* Cope with mmu-less systems somewhat gracefully */
> > #if defined(__UCLIBC__) && !defined(__ARCH_HAS_MMU__)
> > #define fork vfork
> > #endif
> >
> > This breaks musl that does not define __UCLIBC__. I posted an updated patch to
> > uses HAVE_FORK instead.
>
> We don't use musl on any noMMU platform today, so this certainly cannot
> explain failures like:
>
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/6cf/6cf75e08795d9ab194ce4e882c0f4858bad979c3/
>
> (which was the first one mentioned in your commit log), since this
> failure happens with uClibc.
>
> Looking at http://autobuild.buildroot.net/?reason=ipkg-0.99.163, I see
> (looking only at the failures since the beginning of 2016) :
>
> * Numerous failures on ARM noMMU (uClibc)
> * Two failures on m68k noMMU (uClibc)
> * An old failure on i686 due to download issue
>
> i.e, none of the failures are caused by a musl-related build.
You are right of course, forgive my sloppiness. To be correct for uClibc the
code should test for __ARCH_USE_MMU__ instead of __ARCH_HAS_MMU__. But testing
HAVE_FORK is better, I thing, since it also covers other hypothetical MMU-less
C libraries.
I'll resend the patch with a correct description.
baruch
--
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
More information about the buildroot
mailing list