Hi Vineet, On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 10:00 -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 03/01/2017 07:25 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:02:27 +0300, Vlad Zakharov wrote: > > > > > > This commit enables getpt() support in ARC defconfigs as some packages > > > need it. E.g. we need this to be able to build xterm package as it uses > > > getpt(). > > > > > > As an example I can refer to buildroot autobuilds where xterm build is > > > failing when using prebuilt ARC toolchain (which in its turn uses uClibc > > > without getpt() support): > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__autobuild.buildroot.net_results_28a_28a92049a6ceef005787c5779f77ecf3fe8ad642_build-2Dend.log > > > &d=DwICAg&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=7FgpX6o3vAhwMrMhLh-4ZJey5kjdNUwOL2CWsFwR4T8&m=ziY-j5w_cIfohygKzr-OKfk6T_9nr9g3b- > > > kimHZMkxg&s=Bi2mbuDCVZlzqIZy-ahLFXcNKXbqMMobAcwsnHR99yA&e=? > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vlad Zakharov <vzakhar at synopsys.com> > > > --- > > > ?extra/Configs/defconfigs/arc/arcv2_defconfig | 1 + > > > ?extra/Configs/defconfigs/arc/defconfig???????| 1 + > > > ?2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > That's more of a question for Waldemar: does it really makes sense to > > have defconfigs for each architecture? I mean how do they differ > > between each other? > > > > For example, the ARC arcv2_defconfig and defconfig only differ by the > > option CONFIG_ARC_CPU_HS, whose only purpose is to pass -mcpu=archs. > > Shouldn't be the solution used on ARM (removing all options to select > > the compiler flags, and leave it to the user to pass the appropriate > > options) be used as well ? > > Yeah that would work fine I guess ! That means for building of our toolchain we'll need to have separately stored "defconfigs" in some form. Let's see what Anton says on that :) And regardless of what mr Anton says having off-the-tree defconfigs is not the best idea because with time options will go in and out and occasionally we'll have outdated defconfigs. > > > > So, are they really useful? Shouldn't uclibc-ng instead come with just > > one or two defconfigs, like a "minimal" one and "full-featured" one? > > totally agree and I've historically been pushing back on patches from Alexey et > all where we wanted to enable toggles to get buildroot packages building. Those changes I made to make sure our prebuilt toolchain is useful for building more packages. I.e. to be in one camp with Mentor's (AKA CodeSourcery) prebuilt tools that are really capable. > That was > a fair requirement on their part but it kept bloating uClibc for our typical > embedded use. But this idea of minimal vs. full featured is exactly what we need. > @Alexey / @vlad can we take this up please ! Probably Waldemar's opinion might be useful here. @Waldemar are there any plans for busting arch-specific defconfigs in favor to generic defconfigs like those "minimal" and "full" mentioned above? -Alexey
