[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] toolchain: introduce BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_21464

[Giulio Benetti]

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:
>> 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 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
>>   	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.

-- 
Giulio Benetti
Benetti Engineering sas