[Buildroot] [PATCH] ipkg: needs MMU
Baruch Siach
baruch at tkos.co.il
Tue Jul 26 15:08:54 UTC 2016
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:52:48PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:14:29 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Using HAVE_FORK indeed seems better. However, can you verify that it
> actually works for MMU-capable platforms?
>
> What worries me is that the code in libbb/ originally comes from
> Busybox, which doesn't use autoconf. HAVE_FORK is a #define value
> defined by ipkg's autoconf configure script, in config.h, and I'm not
> sure if the libbb/ code includes config.h.
>
> So, please make sure that HAVE_FORK is really taken into account when
> building on MMU-capable platforms by adding some #error in the #if
> defined(HAVE_FORK) test in the libbb code that you're changing.
I verified that config.h macros are defined in libbb.h before posting the last
patch, by using another defined macros. I repeated this test as you suggested,
with HAVE_FORK and the current br-arm-full.config, just to be sure. The #error
triggers as expected in both tests.
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