From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] LIBLO : bump version to 0.29
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:45:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180210184552.14500165@windsurf.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+bRTvCnigi1UKbkhQv2zGy0vCshgDfzGuOnvv_PjVMXq-_Qgw@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Alex,
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:19:16 +0100, Alex Baldwin wrote:
> I am not sure the best place to address this so please correct me :) I
> noticed that this patch failed with your submission as well as Matt
> Webber's, but for different reasons.
>
> It seems that on yours
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/71a6d7e02a50f6cb53c70c38e82e2a2ae8af13ea/build-end.log
> there is a warning about having to redirect <sys/poll.h> to <poll.h> in the
> file "server.c:54". This could be sorted with a simple patch, is it
> acceptable to patch for this?
Yes, it is acceptable. In addition to fixing this particular problem,
it would be nice to avoid using -Werror. Indeed, the problem here is
that this warning is treated as an error, causing a build failure.
While -Werror makes sense during development, it doesn't make much
sense for releases.
> On Matt's
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/c8b/c8bed3a3fa7d2b2258f573cbfcb01af07419e0bf/build-end.log
> we fail because undefined reference to __atomic_fetch_add_4 . I think a
> possible fix could be manually linking to libatomic. I am not entirely sure
> why, seems that some compilers are happy to find libatomic on their own and
> others aren't. Is this something that buildroot would normally patch for?
The libatomic situation depends on the architecture. On most
architectures, __atomic_fetch_add_4 is a compiler builtin, so you don't
need to link with libatomic.
However, on SPARC (which is the CPU architecture on which this build
failure occurs), libatomic is needed for __atomic_fetch_add_4.
You have two solutions to handle that:
(1) Just pass LIBS="-latomic" in LIBLO_CONF_ENV when
BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_LIBATOMIC=y
(2) Patch the configure.ac script so that it tests if linking with
libatomic is needed or not, and links with it if needed.
In any case, if you do a patch against liblo, don't forget to submit it
upstream.
Thanks!
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-10 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-08 19:37 [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] LIBLO : bump version to 0.29 Alex B
2018-02-08 19:37 ` Alex B
2018-02-08 22:04 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-02-10 16:19 ` Alex Baldwin
2018-02-10 17:45 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2018-02-11 16:25 ` Alex Baldwin
2018-02-12 20:05 ` Thomas Petazzoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180210184552.14500165@windsurf.lan \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox