[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/3] toolchain: workaround musl/kernel headers conflict

[Baruch Siach]

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:24:48PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2017 14:17:44 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > Would that be better (untested)?
> > 
> > diff --git a/toolchain/toolchain/toolchain.mk b/toolchain/toolchain/toolchain.mk
> > index e29837357a27..e15ceeb426fa 100644
> > --- a/toolchain/toolchain/toolchain.mk
> > +++ b/toolchain/toolchain/toolchain.mk
> > @@ -21,8 +21,10 @@ TOOLCHAIN_ADD_TOOLCHAIN_DEPENDENCY = NO
> >  # IFF_DORMANT and IFF_ECHO, add another macro to suppress them in the
> >  # kernel header, and avoid macro/enum conflict.
> >  #
> > +# Kernel version 3.12 introduced the libc-compat.h header.
> > +#
> >  # [1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/10/08/2
> > -ifeq ($(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_MUSL),y)
> > +ifeq ($(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_MUSL)$(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_3_12),yy)
> >  define TOOLCHAIN_MUSL_KERNEL_HEADERS_COMPATIBILITY_HACK
> >  	$(SED) 's/^#if defined(__GLIBC__)$$/#if 1/' \
> >  		$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/linux/libc-compat.h
> 
> Yes. The question is whether we will see those build failures due to
> kernel/userspace headers conflicts. Do you remember a simple
> package/scenario that triggers the problem?

The following two commits in this series, c0b756cac412 (Revert "bridge-utils: 
fix build with musl"), and bae792e4c04 (Revert "norm: add patch to fix musl 
build"), point at some likely build failure candidates.

baruch

-- 
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -