From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Henrique Marks Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:22:58 -0200 (BRST) Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] protobuf: apply patch to compile for PowerPC In-Reply-To: <20160205140909.764ff2e6@free-electrons.com> References: <1453986515-9505-1-git-send-email-casantos@datacom.ind.br> <20160205000613.504940f9@free-electrons.com> <1851498233.1377552.1454670293384.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> <20160205140909.764ff2e6@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <249443164.1454061.1454678578498.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Yes, once the atomic series enter master branch, we are going to proceed on with this patch: - Change protobuf, as you stated. - Change Dependent Packages, it is four or five last time i checked out. - Build on powerpc these packages, with gcc > 4.8 I guess this is enough. Thanks ----- Mensagem original ----- > De: "Thomas Petazzoni" > Para: "DATACOM" > Cc: "Carlos Santos" , buildroot at buildroot.org > Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 5 de fevereiro de 2016 11:09:09 > Assunto: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] protobuf: apply patch to compile for PowerPC > Hello Henrique, > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:04:53 -0200 (BRST), Henrique Marks wrote: > >> I agree with you, but let me say that the original patch just corrects a "syntax >> error" in the code ! >> >> + #define GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_ATOMICOPS_ERROR \ >> +-#error "Atomic operations are not supported on your platform" >> ++"Atomic operations are not supported on your platform" > > Correct. In fact I thought it was only with recent compilers, but it is > probably incorrect regardless of the gcc version, and it doesn't fail > in all cases because we ensure that protobuf is only built on > architecture on which protobuf has built-in support for atomic > operations. And therefore you don't fall into the #else cases where > this bogus error macro is used. > >> This syntax error correction was submitted upstream, but wasnt >> applied to protobuf 2.6.1, just to protobuf 3x series. As we cannot >> drive the push to protobuf 3.x series right now (but we can in the >> near future, as soon as the first 3.x appears), we submitted a patch >> to buildroot. > > Sure. But in this case, we prefer the patch to be a backport from > upstream, so that it is clearer when bumping that the patch can be > dropped. > > And also, when a patch has been accepted by upstream, we have a higher > confidence that the patch is correct. > >> Despite of this, the solution using the atomic patch you sent seems >> ok. We are using the patch we submmited for six months now, >> internally, and we try to send upstream everything, as soon as >> possible, so that we can keep up with the upstream tree. When your >> solution goes in, we can remove our internal patch (it is submmited >> in protobuf upstream 3.x anyway). > > OK. Could you work on a proper patch series on the atomic series is > merged in master ? > > Thanks! > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering > http://free-electrons.com -- Dr. Henrique Marks henrique.marks at datacom.ind.br R. Am?rica, 1000 - Eldorado do Sul - RS CEP: 92990-000 - Brasil Fone: +55 51 3933 3000 - Ramal 3466