Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] toolchain/Config.in: update gcc bug 90620

[Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>]

On 11/09/22 21:30, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Giulio, All,
> 
> On 2022-09-10 15:52 +0200, Giulio Benetti spake thusly:
>> Gcc bug 90620 reappeared with gcc 11.x so let's update
>> BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_GCC_BUG_90620 conditions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>
>> ---
>>   toolchain/Config.in | 7 ++++---
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/toolchain/Config.in b/toolchain/Config.in
>> index fbc2f28553..16e358344d 100644
>> --- a/toolchain/Config.in
>> +++ b/toolchain/Config.in
>> @@ -168,11 +168,12 @@ config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_GCC_BUG_85862
>>   
>>   # https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90620
>>   # ICE: in do_output_reload, at reload1.c:7978 on microblaze.
>> -# This bug no longer exists in gcc 10.x
>> +# This bug no longer exists in gcc 10.x but reappeared in gcc 11.x
>>   config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_GCC_BUG_90620
>>   	bool
>> -	default y if BR2_microblaze
>> -	depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_10
>> +	default y if !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_10
>> +	default y if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_11
>> +	depends on BR2_microblaze
> 
> I am not sure why the switch of default to depends is needed, because the
> same condition can still be written without changing the default:
> 
>      default y if BR2_microblaze
>      depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_10 \
>              || BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_11

It was an attempt to propose a standard shape to use here

> Yeah, I see that other symbols that have a dependency on two gcc version
> have the default/depends inverted, but symbols that have a dependency on
> a single gcc version do not, e.g.:
> 
>      config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_GCC_BUG_85862
>          bool
>          default y if BR2_microblaze
>          depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_7
> 
> So, I think it is better to keep the same semantics between the two
> situations.
> 
> So, I fixed that, and applied to master, thanks.

Thank you

> Note, there is also a third way to write it, and obviouslty we are also
> using that:
> 
>      config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_GCC_BUG_93847
>          bool
>          default y if BR2_nios2 && !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_9
> 
> Meh... :-(

Exactly :-)

> Note: this is *not* a plea for patches to fix that, at all. I just like
> ranting a bit. ;-)

Why don't we choose a standard way instead? This for next patches, or
even to send a patchset to keep consistency between all the bugs, but
I know that it doesn't add anything and can add regressions.

What do you think?

Best regards
-- 
Giulio Benetti
Benetti Engineering sas
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot