From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 09:54:04 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH RFC] Fix avr32 build using internal toolchain In-Reply-To: References: <1358460970-2081-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com> <20130119113852.6d35aa94@skate> Message-ID: <50FBE8EC.6060602@zacarias.com.ar> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 01/20/2013 08:01 AM, Simon Dawson wrote: > Yes, I understand that the avr32 toolchain is in a bit of a mess. I'm > using host gcc version 4.6 without problems; from memory, I think it's > 4.7 that doesn't work --- I might have misremembered 'though... With gentoo's 4.6.3 it fails for me in the same way as described at Atmel's site http://www.atmel.no/buildroot/buildroot-issues.html (Error: invalid register list) > Yes, I think we discussed this briefly at the Buildroot Developer Days > in Barcelona. My understanding is that avr32 is regarded > semi-officially as an end-of-life architecture. Atmel technical > support are, for the time being, still dealing with support queries > for avr32. Do you know if the UC3 microcontrollers are in the same boat? If they aren't there may still be some hope for the toolchain (at least binutils/gcc, not much for uclibc/linux). > From my own perspective, I'd rather keep the avr32 support in > Buildroot for now. I don't know how many other people are using the > architecture --- not that many, I suspect. Would that be a major > problem? Testing and fixing is an issue on the toolchain side when there's no upgrade path possible. I wouldn't like to stick to old and potentially vulnerable versions of packages (example: gnutls) because the toolchain is too old to handle it, it's problematic. And dragging arch-specific patches isn't fun either. Maybe we can keep it and start marking broken packages as !BR2_avr32 ? That may be a rough ride though with all the dependencies. Regards.