From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Romain Naour Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 22:38:59 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/5] package/gcc: add support for gcc 10 In-Reply-To: <20200624215539.078dfb99@windsurf> References: <20200608221347.2639059-1-romain.naour@gmail.com> <20200608221347.2639059-2-romain.naour@gmail.com> <20200624215539.078dfb99@windsurf> Message-ID: <718461ba-d2b5-68a6-7f2a-82410f5e7740@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, Le 24/06/2020 ? 21:55, Thomas Petazzoni a ?crit?: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 00:13:44 +0200 > Romain Naour wrote: > >> Keep the same patch as for gcc 9.x fixing a parallel build issue: >> 58ecbbc3ef18c43ae1c02a5c4bf30aa7ef2d8092. >> >> Keep libzstd support disabled for now, it could be used to LTO bytecode. > > "... it could be used for LTO bytecode compression", otherwise it > doesn't make a lot of sense. > > I've applied, but I have some comments/questions below. > >> +config BR2_GCC_VERSION_10_X >> + bool "gcc 10.x" >> + # or1k needs binutils >= 2.32 >> + depends on !(BR2_or1k && BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_31_X) > > Why are we doing this here, instead of in the binutils package ? This > looks strange. This dependency was added by [1] when we had a gcc 5 fork for or1k. [1] https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=e0ba09768eb27872e8685754952601bdac9ac75b It here because it's gcc that require a recent enough binutils version. Maybe we should consider adding BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BINUTILS_AT_LEAST_xxxx. I think we already have a problem with new cpu variant that require the latest binutils version. > >> + # powerpc spe support has been deprecated since gcc 8.x. >> + # https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-04/msg00102.html >> + depends on !BR2_powerpc_SPE > > Should we now drop support for PowerPC SPE ? If every body is ok, then we can drop it. > >> + # C-SKY sk610 needs abiv1, which is not supported in >> + # upstream gcc. C-SKY gcc upstream support not tested >> + # with upstream binutils and glibc. >> + depends on !BR2_csky > > We haven't had any news/contribution for C-SKY people for quite a > while. I know in recent SoC they have used RISC-V cores, but they were > supposed to continue making C-SKY based SoCs. I am fearing that this > looks like yet another abandoned CPU architecture :-/ I'm not sure about this, their gitlab is still active: https://gitlab.com/c-sky/buildroot/-/pipelines IIRC we had some news from Guo Ren about the upstream qemu support for csky cpus http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2020-May/283411.html Best regards, Romain > > Best regards, > > Thomas >