From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QRizf-0000bO-IB for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:49:43 +0200 Received: from cambridge.roku.com ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QRiwd-0001Xr-Bt; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:46:35 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: raj.khem@gmail.com, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <4DE5DA86.7040808@gmail.com> References: <4DE5CDA3.1020000@linux.intel.com> <4DE5D4AC.4090805@gmail.com> <20110601061050.GA3281@jama.jama.net> <4DE5DA86.7040808@gmail.com> Organization: Phil Blundell Consulting Ltd Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:46:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1306925194.2529.38.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcmode-default: disable ARMv7 Optimization for qt4-x11-free X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:49:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:21 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On 05/31/2011 11:10 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:57:00PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > >> On 05/31/2011 10:26 PM, Saul Wold wrote: > >>> | ../../include/QtCore/../../src/corelib/arch/qatomic_arm.h:361:35: > >>> error: output number 1 not directly addressable > >> > >> this is a coding error you can fix the source code I guess instead of > >> pessimising the whole package > > > > FWIW: I haven't seen it in my armv7-a builds (nokia900), but I'm using > > gcc-4.6 from meta-oe. > > this is because gcc 4.6 in meta-oe has fix for it its this patch here > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01477.html I'm a bit confused by this. In the first quote above you said that this was a coding error and ought to be fixed in qt, but now you seem to be saying that it's a compiler bug and should be fixed in gcc. If it's the latter, can we get that patch applied to the oe-core version of gcc? Either way, I agree, working around this by just frobbing the architecture options seems like a bad idea. p.