From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:21:31 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 2/2] package/gdb: add gdb 7.7.1 In-Reply-To: <53711C15.5010909@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1399842673-21261-1-git-send-email-cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1399842673-21261-2-git-send-email-cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140511235400.67d6ac5f@free-electrons.com> <53711C15.5010909@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20140512212131.4f83a517@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Cody P Schafer, On Mon, 12 May 2014 12:08:05 -0700, Cody P Schafer wrote: > > I'm not sure we want to jump straight to 7.7 for all architectures. > > We're usually a bit conservative with regard to the version of toolchain > > components. So I'd suggest instead to add 7.6 and 7.7. Make 7.6 the new > > default for all architectures except PPC64, and make 7.6 unavailable > > for PPC64, and therefore select 7.7 for PPC64. Of course, all older gdb > > versions should be unavailable for PPC64. > > So long as s/PPC64/PPC64le/, sure. Right. I guess PPC64 (big endian) has been supported since a long time, is this correct? > > Another question is: are there some existing, publicly available, > > pre-built toolchain for PPC64 ? > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ has a ppc64 one (without a > libc). I'm not aware of one shipping with a libc. Toolchains without a libc are not very useful in the context of Buildroot. > I don't know of any ppc64le prebuilt toolchains. Ok, no problem :) > > My last question is: how far goes your interest for PPC64 ? When we > > start supporting a new architecture in Buildroot, we generally add it > > in the autobuilders, which means that a significant portion of the > > Buildroot packages get built against this new architecture. This often > > raises a number of build failures. Would you be willing to help fixing > > those? To help doing this, we generally offer to people in charge of a > > given architecture to receive a daily e-mail listing the build failures > > that occurred on that architecture. A good thing is that this helps the > > persons maintaining this infrastructure notice which userspace packages > > need to be taken care of. > > I'm really only doing this because I end up using buildroot to build > netboot images to test kernel changes I make on real hardware. > It's entirely a yak shaving project to me. > > That said, I'm fine with getting emails, but can't promise anything > about actually helping fix things. No problem, that's fine: it's a best effort thing. It's just that when we support an architecture in Buildroot, we would like to have a fairly decent support. It really isn't nice if we pretend to support a given architecture, and in fact things quickly fall apart when a new user comes in and tries to build a given configuration of packages for this architecture. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com