From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:40:00 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] Analysis of build failures In-Reply-To: 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> <20150722165405.217f4e4f@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <55AFB950.10603@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 22/07/15 12:27, Brendan Heading wrote: > Brendan, > > My fairly uninformed opinion is that this indeed looks like a good > approach. Though maybe Gustavo's more informed opinion might contradict > me on this. > > > Like you I would bow to Gustavo's SPARC knowledge. But I submitted the > patch upstream, let's see what they say. I think they *intend* glib to > fall back with the USE_NATIVE_MUTEX macro when hw support isn't present > - here, we're just fixing their detection of that case. > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752731 It's been a long time since i touched SPARC hardware, and even so i think this looks like the right approach. Though for other packages we'll still need to handle the libatomic situation on a per-arch basis, but it will need to be finer-grained than that since different ISA levels affect the availability of atomics as well. Regards.