[OE-core] boost 1.56 compile fail

[Peter A. Bigot]

On 08/29/2014 03:36 PM, Dan McGregor wrote:
> On 29 August 2014 05:48, Peter A. Bigot <pab at pabigot.com> wrote:
>> On 08/29/2014 06:28 AM, Yi Qingliang wrote:
>>
>> hardware: samsung s3c6410
>>
>> after updated to latest poky, the boost compile fail!
>>
>> error info:
>> libs/atomic/src/lockpool.cpp:127:5: error: 'thread_fence' is not a member of
>> 'boost::atomics::detail'
>> libs/atomic/src/lockpool.cpp:138:5: error: 'signal_fence' is not a member of
>> 'boost::atomics::detail'
>>
>>
>> after dig into it, I found that:
>> the marco 'BOOST_ATOMIC_FLAG_LOCK_FREE' is 0, so it don't include
>> 'operations_lockfree.hpp' which has 'thread_fence' and 'signal_fence', but
>> pthread.h at line 21.
>>
>> in file 'caps_gcc_atomic.hpp', 'BOOST_ATOMIC_FLAG_LOCK_FREE' is set to '0',
>> the author think if '__GCC_ATOMIC_BOOL_LOCK_FREE' is 1, the atomic serial
>> function gcc provided is not lock free.
>>
>>
>> This is the sort of GCC internal header indicator that would have changed
>> value as a result of:
>>
>> http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc?id=0ba6ab39f187ecd4261f08e768f365f461384a3a
>>
>>
>>
>> at the end of 'caps_gcc_atomic.hpp', it defined 'BOOST_ATOMIC_THREAD_FENCE'
>> as 2.
>>
>> so the conflict is: BOOST_ATOMIC_THREAD_FENCE and
>> BOOST_ATOMIC_FLAG_LOCK_FREE
>>
>> I don't know it is the new poky problem, or the boost problem, any idea?
>>
>>
>> My guess is that Boost is making assumptions about what the internal GCC
>> predefined symbols mean that aren't entirely accurate.  There are several
>> flags that are used in the libstdc++ headers to indicate whether the
>> compiler is using lock-free instructions.
>>
>> Boost-1.56 builds without error for my beaglebone target with poky at:
>>
>> * 669c07d (HEAD, origin/master, origin/HEAD, master/upstream, master/dev)
>> [Wed Aug 27 14:24:52 2014 +0100] bitbake: build/data: Write out more
>> complete python run files
>>
>> so it may have something to do with your target machine.
> It absolutely does. I found that armv6 breaks, but armv6zk and newer work.

Interesting.  There are no armv6zk tune features I can see in poky, 
though google suggests it applies to the Raspberry Pi.

The problem then must be with the first override in this:

# ARMv6+ adds atomic instructions that affect the ABI in libraries built
# with TUNE_CCARGS in gcc-runtime.  Make the compiler default to a
# compatible architecture.  armv6 and armv7a cover the minimum tune
# features used in OE.
EXTRA_OECONF_append_armv6 = " --with-arch=armv6"
EXTRA_OECONF_append_armv7a = " --with-arch=armv7-a"

ARMv6 has LDREX/STREX, but ARMv6K adds {LD,ST}REX{B,H,D}.  The same 
problem addressed above is likely to happen if the libraries are built 
with armv6k but the compiler doesn't default to it.

There are no armv6k tune parameters I can locate in poky.  What layers 
have the tune configurations that are causing problems?

Peter