From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:16:16 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] ptpd2: fix bfin compile by avoiding gcc bug In-Reply-To: <20161122101219.GT27313@waldemar-brodkorb.de> References: <20161121183217.GA1046@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20161121220442.77263bd3@free-electrons.com> <20161122101219.GT27313@waldemar-brodkorb.de> Message-ID: <20161122111616.4cdfdd67@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, 22 Nov 2016 11:12:20 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > However, I continue to dislike such hacks: when the problem gets fixed > > by gcc, how will we notice? > > Either when we get notice that the PR is closed, this time I need to > create one. But we have similar issues where we already have PR's. > Or we check when a new gcc release come out, if the results from > "grep bfin package/*/*mk" are still required. Maybe we need to have some kind of convention of a specific string to include in the comment on such hacks, in order to more easily grep? Like: # Workaround gcc-prXYZ or # Workaround binutils-prXYZ This way, we can grep for "gcc-pr" and "binutils-pr" and easily check the status of those PRs. > I think better then never ending autobuild failures. For sure, I'm not claiming we should keep things as-is. It's good to add temporary hacks, but it's also good to think about how we can at some point remove those hacks. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com