From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 15:12:25 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] m68k: add special gcc flag to avoid ICE for coldfire In-Reply-To: References: <20161126085144.GA23223@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20161126145224.2aa5ef33@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20161126151225.1eeaff6e@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 Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:59:34 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > Hum, thanks but this patch you're pointing to is really material for > > next at this point, so I cannot apply your patch, which should be > > applied on master in order to fix the autobuilder issues. > > Begging to differ: doing the same without patch 683830 would be a much bigger > patch (adding yet another -D option to the wrapper, updating the wrapper > itself). But OK, it's getting a bit later to still take _any_ risk, so probably > the bigger patch is better. That's my point: that late in the cycle, I don't want to touch too many things around the toolchain wrapper. So adding one more CFLAGS or LDFLAGS specific to m68k is OK (worst thing is a regression on m68k, which probably isn't very widely used). But a change that touches the toolchain wrapper, and can potentially break major architectures, I'm not a big fan. If nobody provides the bigger patch, I think I'm going to live with the m68k autobuilder failures until the release, and merge afterwards. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com