From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Analysis of build failures In-Reply-To: <55AF91B5.8050806@zacarias.com.ar> References: <20150722063018.99E6B101957@stock.ovh.net> <20150722094349.424e7a3e@free-electrons.com> <55AF8CF6.7080709@zacarias.com.ar> <20150722144535.103766f3@free-electrons.com> <55AF91B5.8050806@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <20150722145242.3d302237@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Gustavo Zacarias, On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:51:01 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > The problem is that packages might have a valid reason for not doing so, > like what glib explicitly says "lockless atomics", libatomic implements > the fallback via locks. > One of the fallbacks is that performance will suffer possibly a lot > (depending on usage), there may be other drawbacks that i'm not aware of. Right, but then until someone implements the SPARC specific code in glib, using the fallback with locks is still better than nothing, no? Even if performance suffers, they are still correct from a semantic point of view. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com