From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vicente Olivert Riera Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:01:32 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3] Disable o32 ABI for MIPS64 architectures In-Reply-To: <53355487.3010401@gentoo.org> References: <1395843340-18539-1-git-send-email-Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com> <53330BEB.3090206@mind.be> <5333165D.90100@imgtec.com> <87txakk5tr.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <5333F5E6.1040604@imgtec.com> <5334BC27.5000400@gentoo.org> <53354619.70905@imgtec.com> <53354EAD.2060907@imgtec.com> <5335510C.3090006@imgtec.com> <533551D2.2010003@imgtec.com> <53355487.3010401@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <5335568C.7050807@imgtec.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 03/28/2014 10:52 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 03/28/2014 06:41, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 03/28/2014 10:38 AM, Vicente Olivert Riera wrote: >>> On 03/28/2014 10:27 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: >>>> On 03/28/2014 09:51 AM, Vicente Olivert Riera wrote: >>>>> On 03/28/2014 12:02 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: >>>>>> On 03/27/2014 05:56, Vicente Olivert Riera wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/26/2014 09:28 PM, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Vicente" == Vicente Olivert Riera >>>>>>>>>>>>> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> +config BR2_MIPS_OABI32 >>>>>>>> >>> + bool >>>>>>>> >>> + default y if BR2_mips || BR2_mipsel >>>>>>>> >>> + default n if BR2_mips64 || BR2_mips64el >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Did you forget to remove this or is there a reason to keep it? >>>>>>>> In the >>>>>>>> >> latter case, please add an explanatory comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Why would I want to remove this? The BR2_MIPS_OABI32 symbol is >>>>>>>> used by >>>>>>>> > glibc and uclibc packages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Arnout is just asking about the 'default n' line. Symbols are 'n' by >>>>>>>> default, so the line doesn't do anything as far as I can see. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have maintained that line because if you remove it and then select >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> MIPS64 target, the "# BR2_MIPS_OABI32 is not set" is not present on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> .config file. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Isn't that a problem? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the definition of BR2_MIPS_OABI32 missing completely, or do you see >>>>>> "BR2_MIPS_OABI32=y"? If it's missing completely, then it's virtually >>>>>> the >>>>>> same as it being there as a comment, which will get stripped >>>>>> out/ignored by >>>>>> the build system. Kconfig/Kbuild (whatever it is called) only cares >>>>>> if the >>>>>> symbol is defined to "y". I believe that is then checked for in >>>>>> Makefiles >>>>>> and is in a generated config.h file for use as a C #define. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's how it works in the Linux kernel at least... >>>>> >>>>> If you remove the "default 'n'" line, and you select a MIPS64 target, >>>>> then "BR2_MIPS_OABI32=y" is completely missing in the .config file. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's not a problem is it? It's ok if the line is missing. A missing >>>> line means "this option is not available". A line starting with "#" >>>> means "the option is available but currently disabled" >>> >>> I want to be sure about that, because there are packages which use the >>> BR2_MIPS_OABI32 symbol. So, maybe having that line starting with "#" >>> means BR2_MIPS_OABI32=n, and everything works fine, and don't having >>> that line at all means that symbol is not defined and the packages which >>> use that symbol fail because of that. That's what I want to know. >>> >> >> I think not having that line, or having that line but prefixed with "#" is >> the same thing as far as the Kconfig dependencies are concerned. >> (pretty much what Joshua said already) > > Yup, it's just a comment and for human consumption only. It's just a way of > telling you, when you read the config file, that the option is disabled. > V4 sent: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/334661/ -- Vincent