[OE-core] gcc 5.2 failures

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 27 July 2015 09:31:01 Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 15-07-27 09:20 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> > On 15-07-27 05:30 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >> I've run a gcc 5.2 test build on the autobuilder:
> >> 
> >> http://errors.yoctoproject.org/Errors/Search/?items=10&query=3628c3c06fa4
> >> 195003ac655bcc791acfac775173&limit=50
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 41 errors (with a few more pending).
> >> 
> >> The good news is that if we tweak the security flags, the poky-lsb gcc,
> >> elfutils, coreutils and iptables issues can be removed and I have a
> >> patch for this. This leaves:
> >> 
> >> 3.14 kernel failures for edgerouter, genericx86-64, qemuarm, beaglebone,
> >> mpc8315e-rdb
> > 
> > Gah. I had all these building with 5.1 .. chasing gcc is a pain
> > with this older kernel.
> > 
> >> openssl issue for p1022ds
> >> 
> >> u-boot on imx28evk, p1022ds, mpc8315e-rdb
> >> 
> >> xf86-video-imxfb-vivante on imx6qsabresd
> >> 
> >> linux-imx issue on imx53qsb
> >> 
> >> Some kind of "random" qemu runtime issue (4 cases).
> >> 
> >> At this point I think we likely need to enter bugs into the bugzilla for
> >> each of these. If we want to switch 1.9 to use this (which I think is
> >> desirable), we need to get this fixed as a priority.
> >> 
> >> Bruce: How do you want to handle the 3.14 issues? Switch to 4.1? or fix
> >> 3.14?
> > 
> > Now that 4.1 is in place, and I can't really see a large user base that
> > needs gcc 5.x with the linux-yocto 3.14 kernel (other folks using
> > master with their own kernel's will obviously have to deal with the
> > issue in their trees) .. join that with the fact that we need to update
> > all the reference boards to 4.1 anyway, my suggestion is that we open
> > bugs for the h/w reference updates (and I'll get the appropriate Wind
> > River eyes on them) and walk away from burning more cycles on gcc 5.x
> > and the 3.14 kernel.
> 
> And of course, I remembered that we updated all the reference
> boards to 3.19, so if 3.19 builds with gcc 5.2 (it may not), then
> all we need to do is move the lsb reference to 4.1 and we'll also
> be free of backporting :)

It would be nice if we were able to point to a set of fixes that people can 
apply onto their older kernels in the migration guide for 1.9 though - I 
guarantee we'll get people asking...

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre