On 8/31/15 10:27 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > >> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:22:31AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Richard Purdie >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2015-08-29 at 10:43 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >>>>> Did you enable thumb in that qemuarm build? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's disabled by default and multiple components are broken when you >>>>> enable it, see: >>>>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7717 >>>> >>>> I'm going to draw a line here. People are asking that the old version of >>>> gmp be brought back due license issues, fine. It doesn't mean that all >>>> the bugs in said old release should be fixed. >>>> >>>> If thumb on arm with old gmp is an issue for people, I'd suggest that >>>> those people figure out which patches are needed and send the patches. >>>> Asking Jussi to deal with this isn't right/fair though. >>> >>> I disagree. If it will be merged it ought to support what we are >>> testing nowadays otherwise the backlog will be kept growing forever... >> >> FWIW: I don't mind getting it merged as is. >> >> It improves situation for non-GPLv3 builds and if there is issue with >> thumb, then it was there before as well, so returning it doesn't make >> things worse. >> >> My previous reply was just to show that building default qemuarm doesn't >> show anything, because thumb isn't enabled and gmp even isn't one of the >> recipes which are failing with thumb-1, maybe Khem meant some issues in >> runtime I don't know about. > > It has issues working with thumb2 as well. Another problem it creates is > building on-device toolchain > since gcc also depends on gmp and when you pin to older version of GMP, it > starts to fail > Thats why I suggested to use mini-gmp ( same but reduced gmp ) can clear of > this situation since it > will be a mini-gmp recipe and won’t interfere with toolchain. >
Do you have any sense of the problems when gcc uses an older version of GMP? If a newer version is required for gcc -- then can gcc itself check that it's a proper minimum version available? (At this point I would assume if someone is worried about GPLv3 issues, that they would NOT be putting the compiler and related tools on the target.) I know we can specify -runtime- minimum versions easily enough using the > directive.. but I don't think there is an easy way to specify minimum build version, other then verify we have the correct version available to us though a file check of some kind. --Mark -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
