From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 07:38:51 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 5/6] package/uclibc: fix compilation errors In-Reply-To: <20200908220627.GH14354@scaer> References: <20200908113324.1022230-1-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> <20200908113324.1022230-6-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> <20200908220627.GH14354@scaer> Message-ID: <20200909053851.GA3515@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi all, > Damien, All, > +Petr in Cc. > Can you guys agree on a set of backports Damien, I also agree you should sent these two patches also to uclibc-ng mailing list (I haven't found them there). I haven't checked the build on high range of archs (only risc64 and intel), but I suppose these additional two are needed. > On 2020-09-08 20:33 +0900, Damien Le Moal spake thusly: > > Add four patches to fix compilation errors when building static no MMU > > uclibc. The first two patches are upstream uclibc patches on top of > > version 1.0.35 tag. The following two patches are added here as > > additional fixes. > > Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal > > --- > > ...evert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch | 43 ++++++++ > > ...0002-fix-static-builds-with-gcc-10.x.patch | 25 +++++ > > ...-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch | 103 ++++++++++++++++++ > > .../0004-librt-avoid-compilation-error.patch | 42 +++++++ > > 4 files changed, 213 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 package/uclibc/0001-Revert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch > > create mode 100644 package/uclibc/0002-fix-static-builds-with-gcc-10.x.patch > > create mode 100644 package/uclibc/0003-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch > > create mode 100644 package/uclibc/0004-librt-avoid-compilation-error.patch > > diff --git a/package/uclibc/0001-Revert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch b/package/uclibc/0001-Revert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..6adc827308 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/package/uclibc/0001-Revert-Fix-static-linking-with-GCC-10.patch > > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ > > +From e80384786d7b7f895c97f2447d4b91af8eb5f0f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > +From: Waldemar Brodkorb > > +Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:45:17 +0200 > > +Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Revert "Fix static linking with GCC-10" > > + > > +This reverts commit 5b58a1ebd89a4f05778441814e81817c82193fa3. > > + > > +This breaks all static builds earlier to gcc 10 :( > > +Bad testing on my side. > We need that the patches you backport carry your own sob-line, as well > as an pointer to upstream: > [Damien: backport from https://cgit.uclibc-ng.org/cgi/cgit/uclibc-ng.git/commit/?id=e80384786d7b7f895c97f2447d4b91af8eb5f0f4] > Signed-off-by: Your NAME > Applies to the secon backported patch as well. I'm sorry, I forget this in my patchset as well. > [--SNIP--] > > diff --git a/package/uclibc/0003-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch b/package/uclibc/0003-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..2fc86d6161 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/package/uclibc/0003-utils-getconf-Fix-compilation-error.patch > > @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ > > +From 684b80c97a38033cf0065537783ecf29bc2251ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > +From: Damien Le Moal > > +Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 15:12:39 +0900 > > +Subject: [PATCH 3/4] utils/getconf: Fix compilation error > I would honestly prefer if you had split this Buildroot patch in two: > - one commit that backports the upstream uClibc-ng changes by > Waldemar, > - one commit that adds your two new changes. > Applying backported patches is a pretty trivial affair (I tend to just > verify that the referenced commit does exist, and this is very fast as I > have a lot of git trees on my local machine]. > But applying non-upstream commits usually undergo quite some more > scrutiny. +1 Damien, my patchset [1] is almost complete (containing these 2 patches only, missing links to the commits), but feel to sent additional patches to fix this (I sent [1] because I overlooked your patch). Kind regards, Petr [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200908150914.328323-1-petr.vorel at gmail.com/ > > +Avoid "warning: statement will never be executed" compilation error if > > +none of the cases are defined. > > + > > +Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal > I know Thomas suggested those to be sent upstream and you agreed. So > don't forget to do so! ;-) > If already done, then a pointer to the upstream bugzilla or mailing list > thread would be good: > [upstream: pending review: https://some/mailing/list/message.html] > Regards, > Yann E. MORIN.