From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF05C432BE for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:00:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B83960F5E for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:00:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 2B83960F5E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=busybox.net Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00560818E6; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:00:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DlWRJcwV7d7Q; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:00:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A5C81886; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D41D1BF2A4 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B6081886 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:00:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0c8ZZD5bJ6Xe for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from relay12.mail.gandi.net (relay12.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.232]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D408D80DD7 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 21:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (Authenticated sender: thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com) by relay12.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 612E9200004; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 21:59:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 23:59:51 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Giulio Benetti Message-ID: <20210830235951.24b82f6d@windsurf> In-Reply-To: <20869f88-4ac4-a4e2-268b-c8d364298583@benettiengineering.com> References: <86602fc9-9d62-0b7b-4ce3-25bf3de27254@mind.be> <7FE9A46C-9CD8-4143-99DE-CE8D786A459C@benettiengineering.com> <761985a1-2152-7a7b-e430-54b7b4ed31f3@mind.be> <20869f88-4ac4-a4e2-268b-c8d364298583@benettiengineering.com> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.18.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] toolchain: introduce BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_GCC_BUG_83143 X-BeenThere: buildroot@busybox.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Romain Naour , Thomas De Schampheleire , buildroot@buildroot.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@busybox.net Sender: "buildroot" Hello Giulio, On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 23:49:57 +0200 Giulio Benetti wrote: > I try with another sh arch then I try to build ruby and check if the > error is the same, that is very likely to happen and then I could > transform BR2_sh4 to BR2_sh. And same goes for other sh4 bugs already > present. But need to re-test them. To be honest, I wouldn't bother testing all possible SuperH architecture variants. If one issue affects SH4, just assume it affects all SuperH variants, and be done with it. SuperH is basically dead, and the only products using SuperH are under maintenance mode so I don't think we should put too much effort in determining specifically which variant of SuperH is affected by each specific gcc bug. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot