* [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? @ 2018-10-19 12:24 Alexey Brodkin 2018-10-19 12:36 ` Romain Naour 2018-10-19 12:37 ` Thomas Petazzoni 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Alexey Brodkin @ 2018-10-19 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hello, This might be quite a na?ve and silly question but I'd like to understand if some patches for Binutils are still really needed. 1. https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0002-ld-makefile.patch This one I may track down to at least 2.15.94.0.2.2 here: https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/commit/toolchain/binutils/?id=c1f119b500b487dac34a730609e6a0f1c30f8bfd Also from that patch I may conclude it came from Debian still no rationale why it was created, what it fixe or improves... But in OpenEmbedded they got rid of it long ago on switch to 2.26, see https://github.com/openembedded/openembedded-core/commit/3c7fe424f850af70989ad682dd9c5be70cd02ca5 2. Same here: https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0003-check-ldrunpath-length.patch 3. This one is pretty much the same: https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0004-add-sysroot-fix-from-bug-3049.patch And bug mentioned in this patch was "fixed" a long ago, see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10340 Any thoughts? -Alexey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? 2018-10-19 12:24 [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? Alexey Brodkin @ 2018-10-19 12:36 ` Romain Naour 2018-10-19 12:37 ` Thomas Petazzoni 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Romain Naour @ 2018-10-19 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi Alexey, Le 19/10/2018 ? 14:24, Alexey Brodkin a ?crit?: > Hello, > > This might be quite a na?ve and silly question but I'd like to understand > if some patches for Binutils are still really needed. > > 1. https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0002-ld-makefile.patch > This one I may track down to at least 2.15.94.0.2.2 here: > https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/commit/toolchain/binutils/?id=c1f119b500b487dac34a730609e6a0f1c30f8bfd > Also from that patch I may conclude it came from Debian still no rationale why it was > created, what it fixe or improves... > > But in OpenEmbedded they got rid of it long ago on switch to 2.26, see > https://github.com/openembedded/openembedded-core/commit/3c7fe424f850af70989ad682dd9c5be70cd02ca5 > > 2. Same here: https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0003-check-ldrunpath-length.patch > > 3. This one is pretty much the same: https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0004-add-sysroot-fix-from-bug-3049.patch > And bug mentioned in this patch was "fixed" a long ago, see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10340 > > Any thoughts? I believe we need to take a look at those old and non upstreamed patches. It's the same problem with gcc package, the two first patches should be removed. We can discuss about it during the meeting. Best regards, Romain > > -Alexey > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? 2018-10-19 12:24 [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? Alexey Brodkin 2018-10-19 12:36 ` Romain Naour @ 2018-10-19 12:37 ` Thomas Petazzoni 2018-10-19 12:53 ` Alexey Brodkin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2018-10-19 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hello, On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:24:26 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > This might be quite a na?ve and silly question but I'd like to understand > if some patches for Binutils are still really needed. > > 1. https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0002-ld-makefile.patch > This one I may track down to at least 2.15.94.0.2.2 here: > https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/commit/toolchain/binutils/?id=c1f119b500b487dac34a730609e6a0f1c30f8bfd > Also from that patch I may conclude it came from Debian still no rationale why it was > created, what it fixe or improves... > > But in OpenEmbedded they got rid of it long ago on switch to 2.26, see > https://github.com/openembedded/openembedded-core/commit/3c7fe424f850af70989ad682dd9c5be70cd02ca5 > > 2. Same here: https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0003-check-ldrunpath-length.patch > > 3. This one is pretty much the same: https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/binutils/2.31.1/0004-add-sysroot-fix-from-bug-3049.patch > And bug mentioned in this patch was "fixed" a long ago, see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10340 > > Any thoughts? I don't have anything specific thought, but I share the general feeling that the stack of patches we have on binutils should be analyzed/revisited, as I'm also sure that a number of those patches are no longer needed. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? 2018-10-19 12:37 ` Thomas Petazzoni @ 2018-10-19 12:53 ` Alexey Brodkin 2018-10-19 12:55 ` Thomas Petazzoni 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Alexey Brodkin @ 2018-10-19 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi Thomas, Romain, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Petazzoni [mailto:thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 3:37 PM > To: Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com> > Cc: buildroot at buildroot.org; Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>; ARC Buildroot mailing list <arc-buildroot@synopsys.com>; > Romain Naour <romain.naour@smile.fr>; Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> > Subject: Re: Legacy patches for Binutils? > > Hello, > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:24:26 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > This might be quite a na?ve and silly question but I'd like to understand > > if some patches for Binutils are still really needed. > > > > 1. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.buildroot.org_buildroot_tree_package_binutils_2.31.1_0002-2Dld- > 2Dmakefile.patch&d=DwIFaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=lqdeeSSEes0GFDDl656eViXO7breS55ytWkhpk5R81I&m=CY8nik3Tm93 > O8isZ-48ZTZZXFjySwIKdtEC36EnnaWs&s=zD8Ya-IfQBGEcRID7FsUMup6xUOXxagtv7TaB6JfVVM&e= > > This one I may track down to at least 2.15.94.0.2.2 here: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.buildroot.org_buildroot_commit_toolchain_binutils_-3Fid- > 3Dc1f119b500b487dac34a730609e6a0f1c30f8bfd&d=DwIFaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=lqdeeSSEes0GFDDl656eViXO7breS55yt > Wkhpk5R81I&m=CY8nik3Tm93O8isZ-48ZTZZXFjySwIKdtEC36EnnaWs&s=OeEURDBE18QSXtmef-lNZsbHsaFmYtrXGeC-L5023L0&e= > > Also from that patch I may conclude it came from Debian still no rationale why it was > > created, what it fixe or improves... > > > > But in OpenEmbedded they got rid of it long ago on switch to 2.26, see > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openembedded_openembedded- > 2Dcore_commit_3c7fe424f850af70989ad682dd9c5be70cd02ca5&d=DwIFaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=lqdeeSSEes0GFDDl656e > ViXO7breS55ytWkhpk5R81I&m=CY8nik3Tm93O8isZ- > 48ZTZZXFjySwIKdtEC36EnnaWs&s=Lou90XS2s5qA4NzeqJSGi_PkRgDoNpcVELp4gT3lJz0&e= > > > > 2. Same here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__git.buildroot.org_buildroot_tree_package_binutils_2.31.1_0003-2Dcheck-2Dldrunpath- > 2Dlength.patch&d=DwIFaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=lqdeeSSEes0GFDDl656eViXO7breS55ytWkhpk5R81I&m=CY8nik3Tm93O > 8isZ-48ZTZZXFjySwIKdtEC36EnnaWs&s=YI9n1_ictMK820ddEwETzxc8wgvpGntsKkcmZuj8uxM&e= > > > > 3. This one is pretty much the same: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__git.buildroot.org_buildroot_tree_package_binutils_2.31.1_0004-2Dadd-2Dsysroot-2Dfix-2Dfrom-2Dbug- > 2D3049.patch&d=DwIFaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=lqdeeSSEes0GFDDl656eViXO7breS55ytWkhpk5R81I&m=CY8nik3Tm93O8i > sZ-48ZTZZXFjySwIKdtEC36EnnaWs&s=MFlW850c-1cjdjQqpZXVTWTS6b2KOlYIT_qRGvvCQVg&e= > > And bug mentioned in this patch was "fixed" a long ago, see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__sourceware.org_bugzilla_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid- > 3D10340&d=DwIFaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=lqdeeSSEes0GFDDl656eViXO7breS55ytWkhpk5R81I&m=CY8nik3Tm93O8isZ- > 48ZTZZXFjySwIKdtEC36EnnaWs&s=txQm-D6mMYoEtxpjNbtSosbMMaLn4Q5J8sqn547r7UI&e= > > > > Any thoughts? > > I don't have anything specific thought, but I share the general feeling > that the stack of patches we have on binutils should be > analyzed/revisited, as I'm also sure that a number of those patches are > no longer needed. Should I add this as a topic for the meeting? -Alexey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? 2018-10-19 12:53 ` Alexey Brodkin @ 2018-10-19 12:55 ` Thomas Petazzoni 2018-10-19 12:57 ` Romain Naour 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2018-10-19 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hello, On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:53:11 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > I don't have anything specific thought, but I share the general feeling > > that the stack of patches we have on binutils should be > > analyzed/revisited, as I'm also sure that a number of those patches are > > no longer needed. > > Should I add this as a topic for the meeting? The topics we write down for the meeting are more discussion topics. Here I don't think there's much discussion needed: simply someone need to look at those patches, their history, the binutils source code, and decide if they are still needed or not. I don't think there is anything controversial here. However, the meeting is also a moment for hacking, so it's definitely something you can pick up as a "fun" task to achieve during the meeting :-) Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? 2018-10-19 12:55 ` Thomas Petazzoni @ 2018-10-19 12:57 ` Romain Naour 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Romain Naour @ 2018-10-19 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Alexey, Thomas, Le 19/10/2018 ? 14:55, Thomas Petazzoni a ?crit?: > Hello, > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:53:11 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > >>> I don't have anything specific thought, but I share the general feeling >>> that the stack of patches we have on binutils should be >>> analyzed/revisited, as I'm also sure that a number of those patches are >>> no longer needed. >> >> Should I add this as a topic for the meeting? > > The topics we write down for the meeting are more discussion topics. > Here I don't think there's much discussion needed: simply someone need > to look at those patches, their history, the binutils source code, and > decide if they are still needed or not. I don't think there is anything > controversial here. > > However, the meeting is also a moment for hacking, so it's definitely > something you can pick up as a "fun" task to achieve during the > meeting :-) +1 Best regards, Romain > > Best regards, > > Thomas > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-19 12:57 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-10-19 12:24 [Buildroot] Legacy patches for Binutils? Alexey Brodkin 2018-10-19 12:36 ` Romain Naour 2018-10-19 12:37 ` Thomas Petazzoni 2018-10-19 12:53 ` Alexey Brodkin 2018-10-19 12:55 ` Thomas Petazzoni 2018-10-19 12:57 ` Romain Naour
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.