On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 12:37 +0100, Andreas Müller wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Koen Kooi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Op 22 feb. 2012, om 22:39 heeft Andreas Müller het volgende geschreven: >> > >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> Applying patch gcc45-no-add-needed.patch >> >>>>> patching file gcc/config/alpha/elf.h >> >>>>> patching file gcc/config/ia64/linux.h >> >>>>> patching file gcc/config/linux.h >> >>>>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 89 (offset -12 lines). >> >>>>> patching file gcc/config/rs6000/sysv4.h >> >>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 908. >> >>>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file gcc/config/rs6000/sysv4.h >> >>>>> Patch gcc45-no-add-needed.patch does not apply (enforce with -f) >> >>>>> ERROR: Function failed: patch_do_patch >> >>>>> ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in: >> >>>>> /home/Superandy/tmp/oe-core-eglibc/work-shared/gcc-4.5-r45+svnr181733/temp/log.do_patch.5367 >> >>>>> NOTE: package gcc-cross-initial-4.5-r45+svnr181733: task do_patch: >> >>>>> Failed >> >>>>> ERROR: Task 2829 >> >>>>> (/home/Superandy/data/oe-core/sources/meta-openembedded/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross-initial_4.5.bb, >> >>>>> do_patch) failed with exit code '1' >> >>>>> >> >>>>> git log does not help me much - what goes wrong? >> >>>> >> >>>> Which actual patch is it failing on? Is there a conflict between >> >>>> oe-core and meta-oe patch set against gcc? >> >>> >> >>> gcc45-no-add-needed.patch is the patch in question. I dont see >> >>> anything wrong with it. >> >>> Can you do bitbake -ccleanall gcc-cross-initial and redo bitbake >> >>> gcc-cross-initial -cpatch ? >> >>> >> >> FYI: I removed the line which came in by the commits I mentioned above >> >> >> >> should_apply[vardepsexclude] += "PN" >> >> >> >> in openembedded-core/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-common.inc >> >> >> >> and build from scratch works without issues. >> > >> > I received reports of the same problem and I handed your fix to them, I'm >> > waiting to hear back. >> > >> Having some experience to this problem now, I have the feeling that >> there is some race condition on patching. I think gcc-cross-initial / >> gcc-cross-intermediate / gcc-runtime share same source directory - >> correct me if I am wrong. In case all start patching about the same >> time, the patches don't match for those being late. This theory is >> encouraged by the fact that the following sequence helps when building >> from scratch: >> >> 1. bitbake gcc-cross-initial >> 2. bitbake gcc-cross-intermediate >> 3. bitbake gcc-runtime >> 4. bitbake <my-image> > > Does gcc-4.5 have different patch sets for any of the above? > > Its now being assumed there is one good patch set shared by all the > recipes (since we're sharing the source directory). If that were not the > case it would explain the issues some people are reporting... > meta-oe gcc-runtime_4.5 says:
SRC_URI_append = "file://fortran-cross-compile-hack.patch" Is this a possible culprit? Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
