[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 5/6] package/uclibc: fix compilation errors

[Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

> Damien, All,

> +Petr in Cc.

> Can you guys agree on a set of backports
Damien, I also agree you should sent these two patches also to uclibc-ng mailing
list (I haven't found them there).

I haven't checked the build on high range of archs (only risc64 and intel), but
I suppose these additional two are needed.

> On 2020-09-08 20:33 +0900, Damien Le Moal spake thusly:
> > Add four patches to fix compilation errors when building static no MMU
> > uclibc. The first two patches are upstream uclibc patches on top of
> > version 1.0.35 tag. The following two patches are added here as
> > additional fixes.

> > Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>
> > ---
> >  ...evert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch |  43 ++++++++
> >  ...0002-fix-static-builds-with-gcc-10.x.patch |  25 +++++
> >  ...-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch | 103 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../0004-librt-avoid-compilation-error.patch  |  42 +++++++
> >  4 files changed, 213 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 package/uclibc/0001-Revert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch
> >  create mode 100644 package/uclibc/0002-fix-static-builds-with-gcc-10.x.patch
> >  create mode 100644 package/uclibc/0003-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch
> >  create mode 100644 package/uclibc/0004-librt-avoid-compilation-error.patch

> > diff --git a/package/uclibc/0001-Revert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch b/package/uclibc/0001-Revert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..6adc827308
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/package/uclibc/0001-Revert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch
> > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > +From e80384786d7b7f895c97f2447d4b91af8eb5f0f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > +From: Waldemar Brodkorb <wbx@openadk.org>
> > +Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:45:17 +0200
> > +Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Revert "Fix static linking with GCC-10"
> > +
> > +This reverts commit 5b58a1ebd89a4f05778441814e81817c82193fa3.
> > +
> > +This breaks all static builds earlier to gcc 10 :(
> > +Bad testing on my side.

> We need that the patches you backport carry your own sob-line, as well
> as an pointer to upstream:

>     [Damien: backport from https://cgit.uclibc-ng.org/cgi/cgit/uclibc-ng.git/commit/?id=e80384786d7b7f895c97f2447d4b91af8eb5f0f4]
>     Signed-off-by: Your NAME <your@email>

> Applies to the secon backported patch as well.
I'm sorry, I forget this in my patchset as well.


> [--SNIP--]
> > diff --git a/package/uclibc/0003-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch b/package/uclibc/0003-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..2fc86d6161
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/package/uclibc/0003-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch
> > @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
> > +From 684b80c97a38033cf0065537783ecf29bc2251ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > +From: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>
> > +Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 15:12:39 +0900
> > +Subject: [PATCH 3/4] utils/getconf: Fix compilation error

> I would honestly prefer if you had split this Buildroot patch in two:

>   - one commit that backports the upstream uClibc-ng changes by
>     Waldemar,

>  - one commit that adds your two new changes.

> Applying backported patches is a pretty trivial affair (I tend to just
> verify that the referenced commit does exist, and this is very fast as I
> have a lot of git trees on my local machine].

> But applying non-upstream commits usually undergo quite some more
> scrutiny.

+1
Damien, my patchset [1] is almost complete (containing these 2 patches only, missing links to the commits), but feel to sent additional patches to fix this (I sent [1] because I overlooked your patch).

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200908150914.328323-1-petr.vorel at gmail.com/

> > +Avoid "warning: statement will never be executed" compilation error if
> > +none of the cases are defined.
> > +
> > +Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>

> I know Thomas suggested those to be sent upstream and you agreed. So
> don't forget to do so! ;-)

> If already done, then a pointer to the upstream bugzilla or mailing list
> thread would be good:

>     [upstream: pending review: https://some/mailing/list/message.html]

> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.