[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] toolchain: introduce BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_21464
giulio.benetti at benettiengineering.com
Sat Feb 29 14:00:01 UTC 2020
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 at benettiengineering.com> wrote:
>> On OpenRisc binutils it still present ld bug 21464 leading to a package
>> protobuf to fail building:
>> The bug was already reported and it's been updated:
>> Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti at 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
>> +# 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.
Benetti Engineering sas
More information about the buildroot