[Buildroot] [PATCH] strongswan: needs atomics

[Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar>]

On 04/08/2015 05:40 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

> Does BR2_ARCH_HAS_ATOMICS says if the HW itself has atomics or if
> generally atomic operations are available in the compiler? I would say
> the latter, since this is actually what we care about.
> 
> But atomic handling is clearly an area that requires some
> clarification, as there are still some autobuilder failures that we are
> not able to solve due to bad handling of atomic related dependencies.

I'd venture to say the first (hardware has atomics) - that's what it
means right now because:

1) We don't handle libatomic, which is the fallback if HW doesn't do it.
This would entail adding LIBS="-latomic" for autotools packages, and
things are magically fixed.

2) We don't copy libatomic (patches sent), so we can't do 1 just yet.

So basically we should rename the whole thing.
BR2_ARCH_HAS_ATOMICS isn't precise, we need to formulate this probably
as BR2_ARCH_NEEDS_LIBATOMIC since AFAIK the fallback is mandatory, while
copying it for the toolchains.
We could have BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_ATOMICS to point towards
toolchains/architectures that don't provide atomics and a fallback.
It also means that packages that were previously excluded can, in fact,
be used anyway as long as libatomic is thrown to the mix.

Regards.