| Submitter | Koen Kooi |
|---|---|
| Date | May 2, 2012, 9:45 a.m. |
| Message ID | <1335951932-6143-4-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/26807/ |
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:45:30AM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for master? As gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only after release AFAIK. Cheers, > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > Tested-by: Denys Dmytriyenko <denys@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> > --- > toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb | 47 +++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb b/toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb > index 1579c8b..ecef5e7 100644 > --- a/toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb > +++ b/toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb > @@ -1,33 +1,46 @@ > require recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-${PV}.inc > > - > INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1" > + > DEPENDS = "virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}gcc virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}g++" > > PACKAGES = "\ > ${PN} \ > ${PN}-dev \ > + ${PN}-dbg \ > + libgcov-dev \ > " > > FILES_${PN} = "${base_libdir}/libgcc*.so.*" > FILES_${PN}-dev = " \ > ${base_libdir}/libgcc*.so \ > ${libdir}/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/crt* \ > - ${libdir}/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/libgcov.a \ > ${libdir}/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/libgcc*" > +FILES_libgcov-dev = " \ > + ${libdir}/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/libgcov.a" > > -do_fetch[noexec] = "1" > -do_unpack[noexec] = "1" > -do_patch[noexec] = "1" > -do_configure[noexec] = "1" > -do_compile[noexec] = "1" > +FILES_${PN}-dbg += "${base_libdir}/.debug/" > > -do_install () { > +do_configure () { > target=`echo ${MULTIMACH_TARGET_SYS} | sed -e s#-nativesdk##` > - > - # Install libgcc from our gcc-cross saved data > install -d ${D}${base_libdir} ${D}${libdir} > - cp -fpPR ${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}/gcc-build-internal-$target/* ${D} > + cp -fpPR ${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}/gcc-build-internal-$target/* ${B} > + mkdir -p ${B}/${PN} > + cd ${B}/${PN} > + chmod a+x ${S}/${PN}/configure > + ${S}/${PN}/configure ${CONFIGUREOPTS} ${EXTRA_OECONF} > +} > + > +do_compile () { > + target=`echo ${TARGET_SYS} | sed -e s#-nativesdk##` > + cd ${B}/${PN} > + oe_runmake MULTIBUILDTOP=${B}/$target/${PN}/ > +} > + > +do_install () { > + target=`echo ${TARGET_SYS} | sed -e s#-nativesdk##` > + cd ${B}/${PN} > + oe_runmake 'DESTDIR=${D}' MULTIBUILDTOP=${B}/$target/${PN}/ install > > # Move libgcc_s into /lib > mkdir -p ${D}${base_libdir} > @@ -36,7 +49,19 @@ do_install () { > else > mv ${D}${libdir}/libgcc* ${D}${base_libdir} || true > fi > + > + # install the runtime in /usr/lib/ not in /usr/lib/gcc on target > + # so that cross-gcc can find it in the sysroot > + > + mv ${D}${libdir}/gcc/* ${D}${libdir} > + rm -rf ${D}${libdir}/gcc/ > } > > +do_package_write_ipk[depends] += "virtual/${MLPREFIX}libc:do_package" > +do_package_write_deb[depends] += "virtual/${MLPREFIX}libc:do_package" > +do_package_write_rpm[depends] += "virtual/${MLPREFIX}libc:do_package" > + > BBCLASSEXTEND = "nativesdk" > > +INSANE_SKIP_libgcc-dev = "staticdev" > +INSANE_SKIP_libgcov-dev = "staticdev" > -- > 1.7.10 > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Op 2 mei 2012, om 11:51 heeft Martin Jansa het volgende geschreven: > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:45:30AM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >> From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > > I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for master? As > gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only after release AFAIK. I might have misunderstood the patches, but these seem to fix real issues in gcc 4.5, so I don't really care if oe-core fixed it after the release, I care about the release working :) Anyway, if they don't work as intended, let's not apply them. regards, Koen
Hi, Le Wed, 2 May 2012 11:51:50 +0200, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:45:30AM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > > From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > > I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for master? As > gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only after release AFAIK. > as I'm supposed to maintain meta-oe/denzil I would prefer that we keep a few days before pushing patches to this branch. I'll soon create a for-denzil branch on github to use it as a stagging area and plan to update meta-oe/denzil once per week. Eric
Op 2 mei 2012, om 12:35 heeft Eric Bénard het volgende geschreven: > Hi, > > Le Wed, 2 May 2012 11:51:50 +0200, > Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:45:30AM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >>> From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> >> >> I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for master? As >> gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only after release AFAIK. >> > as I'm supposed to maintain meta-oe/denzil I would prefer that we keep a > few days before pushing patches to this branch. The OE-classic release branches usually had rules like "wait at least 24 hours between post and push", so your idea makes a lot of sense. regards, Koen
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for master? As > gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only after release AFAIK. > Yes they are strictly for master to accomodate basic changes in build sequence we did for gcc 4.7 that said, I think now that denzil has released we should reconsider maintaining gcc 4.5 in toolchain-layer and same goes for other recipes in the layer. Infact I feel the whole layer can be dropped.
Op 2 mei 2012 om 20:14 heeft Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for master? As >> gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only after release AFAIK. >> > > Yes they are strictly for master to accomodate basic changes in build sequence > we did for gcc 4.7 that said, I think now that denzil has released we should > reconsider maintaining gcc 4.5 in toolchain-layer and same goes for other > recipes in the layer. Infact I feel the whole layer can be dropped. I was planning to propose the same, any objections?
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:26:49PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > > > Op 2 mei 2012 om 20:14 heeft Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for master? As > >> gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only after release AFAIK. > >> > > > > Yes they are strictly for master to accomodate basic changes in build sequence > > we did for gcc 4.7 that said, I think now that denzil has released we should > > reconsider maintaining gcc 4.5 in toolchain-layer and same goes for other > > recipes in the layer. Infact I feel the whole layer can be dropped. > > I was planning to propose the same, any objections? I've switched to gcc-4.7, so not from me. Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/02/2012 11:29 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:26:49PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >> >> Op 2 mei 2012 om 20:14 heeft Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> het >> volgende geschreven: >> >>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Martin Jansa >>> <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for >>>> master? As gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only >>>> after release AFAIK. >>>> >>> >>> Yes they are strictly for master to accomodate basic changes in >>> build sequence we did for gcc 4.7 that said, I think now that >>> denzil has released we should reconsider maintaining gcc 4.5 in >>> toolchain-layer and same goes for other recipes in the layer. >>> Infact I feel the whole layer can be dropped. >> >> I was planning to propose the same, any objections? > > I've switched to gcc-4.7, so not from me. good and as Koen is nodding I assume angstrom is fine too. So I think we should drop the layer from master. > > Cheers, > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+hpIoACgkQuwUzVZGdMxR1wwCfep667NaYhcoQKNuyTriVhRz4 FdwAn2sS+BlN0inqL0GsxJInP0CEnsN6 =E6x4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:18:02PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 05/02/2012 11:29 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:26:49PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> > >> > >> Op 2 mei 2012 om 20:14 heeft Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> het > >> volgende geschreven: > >> > >>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Martin Jansa > >>> <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm not using gcc-4.5, but aren't those 3 patches only for > >>>> master? As gcc-4.7 and other gcc changes were in oe-core only > >>>> after release AFAIK. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes they are strictly for master to accomodate basic changes in > >>> build sequence we did for gcc 4.7 that said, I think now that > >>> denzil has released we should reconsider maintaining gcc 4.5 in > >>> toolchain-layer and same goes for other recipes in the layer. > >>> Infact I feel the whole layer can be dropped. > >> > >> I was planning to propose the same, any objections? > > > > I've switched to gcc-4.7, so not from me. > > good and as Koen is nodding I assume angstrom is fine too. So I think > we should drop the layer from master. Yes, but not immediately - give one or two week notice, please :) Actually, this should be considered as a notice and the actual commit to remove should be executed later, if nobody says otherwise... Basically, sending an RFC patch for review that deletes gcc-4.5 and waiting few days should do it.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: >> good and as Koen is nodding I assume angstrom is fine too. So I think >> we should drop the layer from master. > > Yes, but not immediately - give one or two week notice, please :) Actually, > this should be considered as a notice and the actual commit to remove should > be executed later, if nobody says otherwise... Basically, sending an RFC patch > for review that deletes gcc-4.5 and waiting few days should do it. OK consider that as notice then
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 05:04:42PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: > >> good and as Koen is nodding I assume angstrom is fine too. So I think > >> we should drop the layer from master. > > > > Yes, but not immediately - give one or two week notice, please :) Actually, > > this should be considered as a notice and the actual commit to remove should > > be executed later, if nobody says otherwise... Basically, sending an RFC patch > > for review that deletes gcc-4.5 and waiting few days should do it. > > OK consider that as notice then Maybe keep empty layer (without recipes) at least for a while so that people doesn't have to update bblayers.conf immediately with next update. Cheers,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 05:04:42PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: >> >> good and as Koen is nodding I assume angstrom is fine too. So I think >> >> we should drop the layer from master. >> > >> > Yes, but not immediately - give one or two week notice, please :) Actually, >> > this should be considered as a notice and the actual commit to remove should >> > be executed later, if nobody says otherwise... Basically, sending an RFC patch >> > for review that deletes gcc-4.5 and waiting few days should do it. >> >> OK consider that as notice then > > Maybe keep empty layer (without recipes) at least for a while so that > people doesn't have to update bblayers.conf immediately with next update. > ok. > Cheers, > > -- > Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel >
Patch
diff --git a/toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb b/toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb index 1579c8b..ecef5e7 100644 --- a/toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb +++ b/toolchain-layer/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.5.bb @@ -1,33 +1,46 @@ require recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-${PV}.inc - INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1" + DEPENDS = "virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}gcc virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}g++" PACKAGES = "\ ${PN} \ ${PN}-dev \ + ${PN}-dbg \ + libgcov-dev \ " FILES_${PN} = "${base_libdir}/libgcc*.so.*" FILES_${PN}-dev = " \ ${base_libdir}/libgcc*.so \ ${libdir}/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/crt* \ - ${libdir}/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/libgcov.a \ ${libdir}/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/libgcc*" +FILES_libgcov-dev = " \ + ${libdir}/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/libgcov.a" -do_fetch[noexec] = "1" -do_unpack[noexec] = "1" -do_patch[noexec] = "1" -do_configure[noexec] = "1" -do_compile[noexec] = "1" +FILES_${PN}-dbg += "${base_libdir}/.debug/" -do_install () { +do_configure () { target=`echo ${MULTIMACH_TARGET_SYS} | sed -e s#-nativesdk##` - - # Install libgcc from our gcc-cross saved data install -d ${D}${base_libdir} ${D}${libdir} - cp -fpPR ${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}/gcc-build-internal-$target/* ${D} + cp -fpPR ${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}/gcc-build-internal-$target/* ${B} + mkdir -p ${B}/${PN} + cd ${B}/${PN} + chmod a+x ${S}/${PN}/configure + ${S}/${PN}/configure ${CONFIGUREOPTS} ${EXTRA_OECONF} +} + +do_compile () { + target=`echo ${TARGET_SYS} | sed -e s#-nativesdk##` + cd ${B}/${PN} + oe_runmake MULTIBUILDTOP=${B}/$target/${PN}/ +} + +do_install () { + target=`echo ${TARGET_SYS} | sed -e s#-nativesdk##` + cd ${B}/${PN} + oe_runmake 'DESTDIR=${D}' MULTIBUILDTOP=${B}/$target/${PN}/ install # Move libgcc_s into /lib mkdir -p ${D}${base_libdir} @@ -36,7 +49,19 @@ do_install () { else mv ${D}${libdir}/libgcc* ${D}${base_libdir} || true fi + + # install the runtime in /usr/lib/ not in /usr/lib/gcc on target + # so that cross-gcc can find it in the sysroot + + mv ${D}${libdir}/gcc/* ${D}${libdir} + rm -rf ${D}${libdir}/gcc/ } +do_package_write_ipk[depends] += "virtual/${MLPREFIX}libc:do_package" +do_package_write_deb[depends] += "virtual/${MLPREFIX}libc:do_package" +do_package_write_rpm[depends] += "virtual/${MLPREFIX}libc:do_package" + BBCLASSEXTEND = "nativesdk" +INSANE_SKIP_libgcc-dev = "staticdev" +INSANE_SKIP_libgcov-dev = "staticdev"