From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: OpenEmbedded <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>,
Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>,
Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: go-cross: incorrect dependency on tune-specific libgcc
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:34:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1491928471.10884.196.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1491828558.10884.112.camel@intel.com>
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 14:49 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm currently extending the yocto-compat-layer.py so that it can detect
> invalid signature changes when changing MACHINE. go-cross-x86_64 shows
> up as broken when comparing signatures for MACHINE=intel-corei7-64 and
> MACHINE=qemux86-64.
>
> Both machines share the same go-cross-x86_64, but that DEPENDS on
> libgcc:
>
> meta/recipes-devtools/go/go.inc:# libgcc is required for the target specific libraries to build properly
> meta/recipes-devtools/go/go.inc:DEPENDS += "go-bootstrap-native libgcc"
>
> And libgcc itself depends on the tune flags for the target architecture
> and thus is different for these two machines:
>
> $ bitbake-diffsigs -t go-cross-x86_64 do_prepare_recipe_sysroot -s 563f419e3854c2351e2cbbf33a9025f6 64e378fd9853a6cd6a4e7f684f52d2fc
> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_populate_sysroot changed from afb6b55c0e2b7d2e816b3d2d214a7326 to 208fac5ae428b07a4aa491b130879e4a
> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_multilib_install changed from 596e1612d7b84b7a9c1b409ee78cca89 to d41e2e835d0abe7646e53e3d63ce00cd
> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_install changed from 9ca4126c69fcceb410253a0603c3d76b to cb0c49687a91ea17f1027c6394baacab
> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_compile changed from ab80902424c73af49257cc3f6fe049aa to 436f978a703476968bd5ae1c1915ee5a
> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_configure changed from eb0c36d87f32ce1ceb7d1e42609578fb to f62c98806faf3a28c2144919b89d3460
> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_prepare_recipe_sysroot changed from b037b950e346bef71a4f8fd2c6a2195c to d4564b5730941279392932e3c670a5a5
> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_fetch changed from e64cd9e029ed63ba3a09e5fe085b7057 to ea4d3f9d10544219ceb8591d5a5a4041
> basehash changed from 8744593af2eddb60244788f2b9476e2d to dabeb22478ef501e35311af75119a2cf
> Variable TUNE_CCARGS value changed:
> " -m64 [--march=corei7 -mtune=corei7-] {+-march=core2 -mtune=core2 -msse3+} -mfpmath=sse [--msse4.2-]"
>
> Does this fix look correct? It turns go-cross into a package that is
> specific to the tune flags for the target.
[...]
> The alternative would be to drop the libgcc dependency, but I have no
> idea whether that would work at all.
Besides Bruce who pointed out the implications on recipes depending on
go-cross-${TARGET_ARCH}, Richard also had concerns about making go-cross
tune-specific, so I ended up testing the libgcc removal approach. It
happened to build okay, so the patch that I ended up proposing (see
"go-cross: avoid libgcc dependency") just removes libgcc from DEPENDS
for go-cross.
I need to revise the method how its done (i.e. not with DEPENDS_remove),
but besides that, can anyone explain whether such a change might hit
some problems somewhere? Khem?
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-11 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-10 12:49 go-cross: incorrect dependency on tune-specific libgcc Patrick Ohly
2017-04-10 12:59 ` Bruce Ashfield
2017-04-10 13:09 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-04-10 13:16 ` Bruce Ashfield
2017-04-10 14:44 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-04-11 16:34 ` Patrick Ohly [this message]
2017-04-11 16:39 ` Khem Raj
2017-04-11 16:52 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-04-11 17:01 ` Khem Raj
2017-04-11 18:26 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-04-11 16:57 ` Richard Purdie
2017-04-11 18:22 ` Khem Raj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1491928471.10884.196.camel@intel.com \
--to=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.ashfield@gmail.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.