From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carlos Santos Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:42:27 -0200 (BRST) Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] protobuf: fix detection of __atomic_*() built-ins In-Reply-To: <20160210165037.1b02b8ee@free-electrons.com> References: <1453986515-9505-1-git-send-email-casantos@datacom.ind.br> <1455118392-3965-1-git-send-email-casantos@datacom.ind.br> <20160210165037.1b02b8ee@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <1240623306.1965860.1455129747228.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net [Thanks, Zimbra, for messing rearranging the messages in the inbox, so I answer them in the wrong order]. > From: "Thomas Petazzoni" > To: "Carlos Santos" > Cc: buildroot at buildroot.org, "henrique marks" > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 1:50:37 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] protobuf: fix detection of __atomic_*() built-ins > Hello, > > Thanks, this looks good, with one nit, see below. > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:33:12 -0200, Carlos Santos wrote: > >> diff --git >> a/package/protobuf/0002-configure.ac-check-if-libatomic-is-needed.patch >> b/package/protobuf/0002-configure.ac-check-if-libatomic-is-needed.patch >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..237bc71 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/package/protobuf/0002-configure.ac-check-if-libatomic-is-needed.patch >> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ >> +From 0883fa19d59ece19eec30937c65fd10162ef57b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> +From: Carlos Santos >> +Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:54:43 -0200 >> +Subject: [PATCH] configure.ac: check if libatomic is needed >> + >> +In Buildroot, to simplify things, we've decided to simply require gcc 4.8 >> +as soon as the architectures has at least one __atomic_*() built-in >> +variant that requires libatomic. >> + >> +Since protobuf most likely only uses the 1, 2 and 4-byte variants, it >> +*could* technically build with gcc 4.7. This is probably not a big deal, >> +and we can live with requiring gcc 4.8 on PowerPC to build protobuf. >> + >> +Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos > > The patch description should not mention Buildroot and not mention > Buildroot specific choices. It should be written as if you were going > to submit it upstream, i.e with a proper justification as to why > linking with libatomic may be needed. This patch only exists to appease Buildroot but, anyway, I can rewrite the comment. > And in fact, I'm even going to ask you to submit this patch upstream :-) They don't need this. Their detection of the atomic built-ins already works without additional help. Carlos Santos (Casantos) DATACOM, P&D