From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gcc-common.inc: Added shared source support for basichash.
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:11:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1326967885.2511.54.camel@ted> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <857BE142E5399E46B20FD45B9DB8A7BC0FCBF7E0@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 09:40 +0000, Lu, Lianhao wrote:
> Richard Purdie wrote on 2012-01-19:
> > On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 03:05 +0000, Lu, Lianhao wrote:
> >> Richard Purdie wrote on 2012-01-17:
> >>> On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 19:43 +0800, Lianhao Lu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Can you please check if this can be fixed by:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc
> >>> index d014980..3a82720 100644
> >>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc
> >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc
> >>> @@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ do_headerfix () {
> >>>
> >>> addtask headerfix after do_unpack before do_patch
> >>> +CROSS_TARGET_SYS_DIR[vardepsexclude] = "PN"
> >>> +CROSS_TARGET_SYS_DIR[vardepvalue] = "1"
> >>> +
> >>> do_configure_prepend () {
> >>> # teach gcc to find correct target includedir when checking libc ssp support
> >>> mkdir -p ${B}/gcc
> >>> as discussed in the "sstate info" thread?
> >>>
> >>
> >> By using this patch, gcc-cross-initial, gcc-cross-intermediate,
> >> gcc-cross would have the same signatures for tasks like do_fetch,
> >> do_unpack, do_headerfix, do_patch. But libgcc still has different
> >> signature with gcc-cross-initial for task do_patch.
> >>
> >> By bitbake-diffsigs the do_patch signature files between gcc-cross-initial and libgcc, it says:
> >> Dependency on task gcc-cross-initial_4.6.bb.do_unpack was added
> >> Dependency on task gcc-cross-initial_4.6.bb.do_headerfix was added
> >> Dependency on task libgcc_4.6.bb.do_unpack was removed
> >> Besides, gcc-runtime seems have an additional patch file "fortran-cross-compile-hack.patch" which was never got be used. This would
> > results all the signature difference between gcc-cross-initial and gcc-runtime. After I remove that unused patch file, the signatures begin to
> > differ in task do_headerfix and do_patch. By bitbake-diffsigs the do_headerfix sigangure files between gcc-cross-initial and gcc-runtime,
> > we could see tons of variable values, variable dependencies, task dependencies difference.
> >>
> >> So I think this patch alone is not enough to solve all the problems here.
> >
> > Agreed, there are further issues. The patch should really move into the
> > main SRC_URI which would resolve that problem. libgcc should really be
> > able to see the do_headerfix task so we could move that from
> > gcc-configure-common to gcc-common.inc.
> >
> > This might not be all of the differences but should get us closer to
> > solving this problem!
> >
>
> By moving the gcc-runtime specific patch into main SRC_URI,
> gcc-runtime still has different signature with gcc-cross-initial for
> task do_headerfix. Bitbake-diffsigs gives the following information.
> Is it possible that the difference comes from the "inherit cross" in
> gcc-cross.inc?
Yes, this is exactly where this difference is coming from.
The problem is that do_headerfix has a lot of variables exported into
its environment, even if it doesn't need/use them. I'm wondering if we
should override bitbake in this particular case using the vardeps flag
with something like:
do_headerfix[vardeps] = "PATH"
which might solve this problem cleanly and remove the need for my
original patch too...
Cheers,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-19 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-16 11:43 [PATCH 0/1] gcc support shared source for basichash Lianhao Lu
2012-01-16 11:43 ` [PATCH 1/1] gcc-common.inc: Added shared source support " Lianhao Lu
2012-01-16 16:59 ` Richard Purdie
2012-01-17 3:05 ` Lu, Lianhao
2012-01-19 9:12 ` Richard Purdie
2012-01-19 9:40 ` Lu, Lianhao
2012-01-19 10:11 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2012-01-22 3:02 ` Khem Raj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1326967885.2511.54.camel@ted \
--to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox