From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:48:16 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] nios2 : gcc 4.9.x buildroot toolchain broken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727224816.29768dfd@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 Brendan Heading, On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:28:21 +0100, Brendan Heading wrote: > While looking at the dmraid build bug on nios2 I noted that it is not > possible to build a buildroot toolchain based on GCC 4.9.x for that > platform. > > You can reproduce the problem using the following (one-line) defconfig : > > BR2_nios2=y > > I tested it against the commit : 5ccde01652bc41da325bf4c9a5abbf0031080784 > > The error is as follows : > > ============= > ../../../libgcc/config/nios2/linux-atomic.c:23:24: fatal error: > asm/unistd.h: No such file or directory > #include > ^ > compilation terminated. > ============= > > The problem only occurs on GCC 4.9.x. GCC 5.x builds fine. > > Someone already submitted a patch to fix this : > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2015-February/119084.html > > The submitter promised to do some more work but it seems to have been left > that way since last February. > > We can either : > - disable GCC 4.9.x for nios2 (leaving 5.x as the only supported buildroot > toolchain) > - integrate & test the above patch > > What does everyone think ? Given that the above patch seems to be > considered incomplete maybe we should disable nios2 4.9.x for now until the > required additions have been submitted. Hum, that's interesting. I indeed saw that gcc 4.9.3 was not building properly for NIOS II. However, gcc 4.9.2 built fine for me. Look at http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/tarballs/br-nios2-full-2015.05.tar.bz2: it is a NIOS II gcc 4.9.2 toolchain generated by Buildroot. So I don't really understand how Ezequiel fall into the problem of with gcc 4.9.2. But I did indeed fall into this problem with gcc 4.9.3. Or maybe the problem is *not* gcc version related only, but also related to the kernel headers version? But in any case, Ezequiel's patch seems fine to me, I'll try to apply something similar. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com