[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] toolchain: introduce BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_21464

Hi Thomas, All,

On 2/28/20 11:19 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:58:13 +0100
Giulio Benetti [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On OpenRisc binutils it still present ld bug 21464 leading to a package
protobuf to fail building:
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/908/9084cd777aefe0fa8235514c33767d8640ad7a5b/

The bug was already reported and it's been updated:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464

Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>
---
  toolchain/Config.in | 6 ++++++
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/toolchain/Config.in b/toolchain/Config.in
index 87509f3d64..d71bb2a65a 100644
--- a/toolchain/Config.in
+++ b/toolchain/Config.in

@@ -81,6 +81,12 @@ config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_19615
  config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_20006
  	bool
  
+# https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464
+# Affect toolchains built with binutils 2.31.1, still not fixed.
+config BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_BINUTILS_BUG_21464
+	bool
+	default y if BR2_or1k

The problem here is that we don't have any Config.in options for
binutils versions, so should this problem be fixed one day, we would
have no way to update this Config.in option.

So at the moment it would make sense to only specify in protobuf 
Config.in that or1k is not supported, right?

To be honest, I am starting to wonder if we should keep support for
OpenRISC. It's using a now quite old gcc version, and I'm not sure the
OpenRISC support has been upstreamed to gcc.

Also, we don't have anyone specifically interested in OpenRISC and
maintaining it...

I don't know, is it more used than Microblaze or less? Maybe that could 
give the idea if keep it or not after all the work with gcc workarounds 
for Microblaze IMHO.

-- 
Giulio Benetti
Benetti Engineering sas