[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2014-05-11

Benoît Thébaudeau benoit.thebaudeau at advansee.com
Wed May 14 22:10:06 UTC 2014


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Baruch Siach <baruch at tkos.co.il> wrote:
> Hi Benoît,
>
> Please keep the list on Cc.

Yes, sorry. I had noticed that I had pressed "reply" instead of "reply
all" only after sending, then I re-sent my e-mail with the Cc's added,
so you must have received my e-mail twice.

> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:22:34PM +0200, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Baruch Siach <baruch at tkos.co.il> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:01:02AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 13 May 2014 10:52:47 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 09:44:26AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> >> > > >        arm |                      lsof-4.85 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/a1f0572dbf968c21f70b35cefff7ef7a1d9a348a/
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Missing TCP_* definitions. Weird because the toolchain has recent
>> >> > > kernel headers (3.12) and uses glibc. Investigation needed.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/345018/ seems applicable (but I didn't test).
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, but I'm not really convinced by the fix, seems strange that
>> >> --sysroot needs to be passed. More investigation is needed to validate
>> >> the proposed fix, I believe.
>> >
>> > Right. It just papers over the real problem which is building a target config
>> > test using the host toolchain, and then running it. The patch at
>> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/348765/ is better, I believe.
>>
>> The issue in my case was that the native toolchain used for the
>> configure test implicitly #included a header file, which triggered a
>> conflict of direct inclusion between the native and cross toolchains
>> header files. Passing --sysroot forces the native toolchain to only
>> use the header files from the cross toolchain, fixing this conflict.
>> This directly addresses the issue without any assumption regarding the
>> cross libc.
>
> This make the test succeed sometimes,

By "sometimes", do you mean that the test also fails sometimes with this patch?

> but mixing host toolchain with target
> headers doesn't look like a good idea.

With this patch, it is less mixed than before, and some of the other
tests performed by the configuration script still try to
cross-configure using the native toolchain. The test fixed here only
looks at the definitions from the header files, so mixing the native
toolchain with the cross header files should not be an issue if the
native and cross header files are no longer mixed thanks to --sysroot.

Also, 'LSOF_INCLUDE="$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include"' is explicitly asking
the configuration script to mix native and cross stuff for tests.

>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/348765/ works too, but it removes a
>> configure test and it relies on the "all libc variants we support have
>> the netinet/tcp.h header" assumption, which might become wrong in the
>> future, which is why I didn't choose this solution.
>
> The alternative header, linux/tcp.h, is broken anyway, because this header
> does not export the TCP_* symbols, as you can see from the build failure error
> message. So getting this test "right" won't help us much.

Correct.

Benoît



More information about the buildroot mailing list