Re: gcc 5.2 failures

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 09:20 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 15-07-27 05:30 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I've run a gcc 5.2 test build on the autobuilder:
> >
> > http://errors.yoctoproject.org/Errors/Search/?items=10&query=3628c3c06fa4195003ac655bcc791acfac775173&limit=50
> >
> > 41 errors (with a few more pending).
> >
> > The good news is that if we tweak the security flags, the poky-lsb gcc,
> > elfutils, coreutils and iptables issues can be removed and I have a
> > patch for this. This leaves:
> >
> > 3.14 kernel failures for edgerouter, genericx86-64, qemuarm, beaglebone,
> > mpc8315e-rdb
> 
> Gah. I had all these building with 5.1 .. chasing gcc is a pain
> with this older kernel.

I'm not sure if this is a 5.1 verses 5.2 issue or not. I'm starting to
wonder if the SRCREVs we're using pull in the gcc 5.x fixes?

E.g. one of the failures was:

/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-arm-lsb/build/build/tmp/work-shared/beaglebone/kernel-source/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:106:30: fatal error: linux/compiler-gcc5.h: No such file or directory

which doesn't look "5.2".

> > Bruce: How do you want to handle the 3.14 issues? Switch to 4.1? or fix
> > 3.14?
> 
> Now that 4.1 is in place, and I can't really see a large user base that
> needs gcc 5.x with the linux-yocto 3.14 kernel (other folks using
> master with their own kernel's will obviously have to deal with the
> issue in their trees) .. join that with the fact that we need to update
> all the reference boards to 4.1 anyway, my suggestion is that we open
> bugs for the h/w reference updates (and I'll get the appropriate Wind
> River eyes on them) and walk away from burning more cycles on gcc 5.x
> and the 3.14 kernel.

That seems reasonable to me, assuming we don't have an easy SRCREV fix
we've just missed/lost somehow...

Cheers,

Richard