From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 18:51:58 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/libselinux: host gcc at least 4.7 In-Reply-To: <20180813150559.guf6i4qh6vogmwhl@sapphire.tkos.co.il> References: <20180813143326.14262-1-matthew.weber@rockwellcollins.com> <20180813144722.tagr3xka7pv24ah3@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <20180813145425.vqtpzppgqznjdcmi@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <20180813150559.guf6i4qh6vogmwhl@sapphire.tkos.co.il> Message-ID: <20180813185158.6658248e@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 18:05:59 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > No. I mean all host and target packages that have host-libselinux in their > _DEPENDENCIES. Otherwise, enabling any of them would cause a build of > host-libselinux regardless of the Config.in dependency. > > Isn't it easier to apply the alternative patch that uses the older __sync > routines for older gcc? Is it would be much easier. The question is: is this patch correct ? I am not super familiar with the semantic of those atomic operations, so I'm not super confident in reviewing Hollis proposal. But if you think Hollis patch is correct, a Acked-by or Reviewed-by on it would be good. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com