From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] ipkg: needs MMU In-Reply-To: <20160726121429.GA3588@tarshish> References: <20160726095929.63583d2e@free-electrons.com> <20160726100101.208d0299@free-electrons.com> <20160726111557.GY3588@tarshish> <20160726134801.1d2eb91b@free-electrons.com> <20160726121429.GA3588@tarshish> Message-ID: <20160726145248.5dc5a39a@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:14:29 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > You are right of course, forgive my sloppiness. To be correct for uClibc the > code should test for __ARCH_USE_MMU__ instead of __ARCH_HAS_MMU__. But testing > HAVE_FORK is better, I thing, since it also covers other hypothetical MMU-less > C libraries. Using HAVE_FORK indeed seems better. However, can you verify that it actually works for MMU-capable platforms? What worries me is that the code in libbb/ originally comes from Busybox, which doesn't use autoconf. HAVE_FORK is a #define value defined by ipkg's autoconf configure script, in config.h, and I'm not sure if the libbb/ code includes config.h. So, please make sure that HAVE_FORK is really taken into account when building on MMU-capable platforms by adding some #error in the #if defined(HAVE_FORK) test in the libbb code that you're changing. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com