Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] toolchain/Config.in: update gcc bug 90620

["Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>]

Giulio, All,

On 2022-09-11 21:43 +0200, Giulio Benetti spake thusly:
> On 11/09/22 21:30, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> >On 2022-09-10 15:52 +0200, Giulio Benetti spake thusly:
> >>Gcc bug 90620 reappeared with gcc 11.x so let's update
> >>BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_GCC_BUG_90620 conditions.
[--SNIP--]
> >>-	default y if BR2_microblaze
> >>-	depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_10
> >>+	default y if !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_10
> >>+	default y if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_11
> >>+	depends on BR2_microblaze
> >
> >I am not sure why the switch of default to depends is needed, because the
> >same condition can still be written without changing the default:
> >     default y if BR2_microblaze
> >     depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_10 \
> >             || BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_11
> It was an attempt to propose a standard shape to use here

Yes, yes, I see that it looked like other similar cases around it.

But my point is that, this make symbols with a single or with two
dependencies on gcc versions differ:

  - the former have a deault on the arch, and depends on the gcc
    versions,

  - while the latter have a default on gcc versins, and a depends on the
    arch.

[--SNIP--]
> >Note: this is *not* a plea for patches to fix that, at all. I just like
> >ranting a bit. ;-)
> Why don't we choose a standard way instead? This for next patches, or
> even to send a patchset to keep consistency between all the bugs, but
> I know that it doesn't add anything and can add regressions.
> 
> What do you think?

I a not even sure what the best is. The best is that they all folow the
same logic, but we currently have (at least) three.

The question is: what is the most important and defining dependency: the
arch or the gcc versions?

I'd argue that, for those microblaze-related bugs, the arch is more
important than the gcc version, so the default should be on the arch,
and the depends on the gcc versions.

So, if I were to handle following changes in that area, that's what I'd
like to see. But others may se things differently. It's a rather ad-hoc
situation anyway.

And no, no patch to standardise that.

Thanks!

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot