problem in building ncurses with uclibc

2013-09-17 Thread neutrino network
hi,
gcc 4.3.3
ncurses 5.7

I am trying to build(cross compiling for mips) ncurses using a uclibc toolchain
but it gives following error;

lib64\libc.a(nsswitch.o): (.data.rel+0x18):undefined reference to
 '_nss_files_endaliasent'


uclibc does not support nss (it is supported by glibc),  how should i
solve this?

my config command is given below;

./configure --prefix=/ncurses_crosscompiled --disable-static --enable-shared
--target=mips64--linux-gnu
CC=$_ROOT/tools/bin/mips64--linux-gnu-gcc-4.3.3
LDFLAGS=-L$_ROOT/tools/lib/gcc/mips64--linux-gnu/4.3.3/

plus ncurses mailing list says that ncurses has nothing to do with this
symbol _nss_files_endaliasent or library.


Kindly guide.

-Name of the embeded device concealed
___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc


Re: [PATCH 3/3] ldso: exclude -fasynchronous-unwind-tables from ldso CFLAGS

2013-09-17 Thread Rich Felker
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:31:53AM +0200, Filippo ARCIDIACONO wrote:
 At least on ARM, building the ld.so with -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
 for backtrace is creating a dependencies against libc through libgcc_eh.
 So it needs to exclude this from the ldso cflags.

Have you figured out why this is happening? I think it's a GCC bug
which should be reported; we've had similar problems with bogus
libgcc_eh dependencies on ARM in musl, but fortunately they're much
easier for us to solve.

 Signed-off-by: Carmelo Amoroso carmelo.amor...@st.com
 Signed-off-by: Filippo Arcidiacono filippo.arcidiac...@st.com
 ---
  ldso/ldso/Makefile.in |2 ++
  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/ldso/ldso/Makefile.in b/ldso/ldso/Makefile.in
 index 91165c6..65f9a46 100644
 --- a/ldso/ldso/Makefile.in
 +++ b/ldso/ldso/Makefile.in
 @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ CFLAGS-ldso/ldso/$(TARGET_ARCH)/ := $(CFLAGS-ldso)
  
  CFLAGS-ldso.c := -DLDSO_ELFINTERP=\$(TARGET_ARCH)/elfinterp.c\ 
 $(CFLAGS-ldso)
  
 +CFLAGS-OMIT-ldso.c = -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
 +

How does this work? -fasynchronous-unwind-tables is the GCC default.
You need -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables to turn them off.

Rich
___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc


Re: [PATCH 2/3] buildsys: fix handling of CFLAGS-OMIT from global CFLAGS

2013-09-17 Thread Florian Fainelli
Hello,

2013/9/13 Filippo ARCIDIACONO filippo.arcidiac...@st.com:
 Currently the Makefile rules are not removing from the global CFLAGS
 any of the OMIT cflags declared at file level. This patch fixes it.

Do we really need to have two different ways of achieving the same
thing? It seems to me that doing:

CFLAGS_foo.c += -fno-bar

is equivalent to:

CFLAGS-OMIT_foo.c += -fbar

I prefer the first one because we do not need to introduce another
infrastructure than the one already existing.


 Signed-off-by: Carmelo Amoroso carmelo.amor...@st.com
 Signed-off-by: Filippo Arcidiacono filippo.arcidiac...@st.com
 ---
  Makerules |3 ++-
  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

 diff --git a/Makerules b/Makerules
 index 367daa5..54344c5 100644
 --- a/Makerules
 +++ b/Makerules
 @@ -230,7 +230,8 @@ collect_multi_flags = $(CFLAGS-$(notdir $(patsubst 
 %/,%,$(dir $(d)

  CFLAGS_gen.dep = -MT $@ -MD -MP -MF $(dir $@).$(notdir $@).dep

 -cmd_compile.c = $(CC) -c $ -o $@ $(CFLAGS) \
 +cmd_compile.c = $(CC) -c $ -o $@ \
 +   $(filter-out $(CFLAGS-OMIT-$(notdir $)),$(CFLAGS)) \
 $(CFLAGS-$(suffix $@)) \
 $(filter-out $(CFLAGS-OMIT-$(notdir $)),$(CFLAGS-$(notdir $(D \
 $(CFLAGS-$(subst $(top_srcdir),,$(dir $))) \
 --
 1.7.7.6

 ___
 uClibc mailing list
 uClibc@uclibc.org
 http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc



-- 
Florian
___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc


Re: [PATCH 3/3] ldso: exclude -fasynchronous-unwind-tables from ldso CFLAGS

2013-09-17 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Rich Felker wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:31:53AM +0200, Filippo ARCIDIACONO wrote:
  At least on ARM, building the ld.so with -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
  for backtrace is creating a dependencies against libc through libgcc_eh.
  So it needs to exclude this from the ldso cflags.
 
 Have you figured out why this is happening? I think it's a GCC bug
 which should be reported; we've had similar problems with bogus
 libgcc_eh dependencies on ARM in musl, but fortunately they're much
 easier for us to solve.

If the unwind info requires one of the standard __aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr* 
personality routines, the assembler generates an undefined symbol 
(R_ARM_NONE relocation) to ensure that personality routine is linked in, 
as required by EHABI (ARM IHI 0038A) (Object producers must emit an 
R_ARM_NONE relocation from an exception-handling table section to the 
required personality routine to indicate the dependency to the linker.).  
As I explained in 
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-05/msg00705.html, for glibc 
it's in fact always OK to have stub rather than real versions of these 
personality routines in libc.so.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc


Re: [PATCH 2/3] buildsys: fix handling of CFLAGS-OMIT from global CFLAGS

2013-09-17 Thread Carmelo Amoroso

Hi Florian

Il 17 settembre 2013 17:57:00 Florian Fainelli f.faine...@gmail.com ha 
scritto:

Hello,

2013/9/13 Filippo ARCIDIACONO filippo.arcidiac...@st.com:
 Currently the Makefile rules are not removing from the global CFLAGS
 any of the OMIT cflags declared at file level. This patch fixes it.

Do we really need to have two different ways of achieving the same
thing? It seems to me that doing:

CFLAGS_foo.c += -fno-bar

is equivalent to:

CFLAGS-OMIT_foo.c += -fbar



Is this always true ?


I prefer the first one because we do not need to introduce another
infrastructure than the one already existing.



CFLAGS-OMIT is a construct already used in several other places in uclibc 
but only applicable at directory level. This patch just extend it to file.




 Signed-off-by: Carmelo Amoroso carmelo.amor...@st.com
 Signed-off-by: Filippo Arcidiacono filippo.arcidiac...@st.com
 ---
  Makerules |3 ++-
  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

 diff --git a/Makerules b/Makerules
 index 367daa5..54344c5 100644
 --- a/Makerules
 +++ b/Makerules
 @@ -230,7 +230,8 @@ collect_multi_flags = $(CFLAGS-$(notdir $(patsubst 
%/,%,$(dir $(d)


  CFLAGS_gen.dep = -MT $@ -MD -MP -MF $(dir $@).$(notdir $@).dep

 -cmd_compile.c = $(CC) -c $ -o $@ $(CFLAGS) \
 +cmd_compile.c = $(CC) -c $ -o $@ \
 +   $(filter-out $(CFLAGS-OMIT-$(notdir $)),$(CFLAGS)) \
 $(CFLAGS-$(suffix $@)) \
 $(filter-out $(CFLAGS-OMIT-$(notdir $)),$(CFLAGS-$(notdir $(D \
 $(CFLAGS-$(subst $(top_srcdir),,$(dir $))) \
 --
 1.7.7.6

 ___
 uClibc mailing list
 uClibc@uclibc.org
 http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc



--
Florian


Carmelo

_

__

uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc



Inviato con AquaMail per Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc


Doing a release?

2013-09-17 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Dear uClibc developers,

The last release of uClibc, 0.9.33.2, has been made well over a year
ago. However, there is fairly big number of improvements/fixes in the
master branch that would be interesting to have in a release. At the
Buildroot level, we now have 53 patches in your patch stack against
uClibc 0.9.33.2, all coming from the master branch if I'm correct (see
http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/uclibc/0.9.33.2).

It'd be really nice if uClibc adopted a slightly more frequent release
schedule, to more easily allow downstream users to benefit from
improvements/fixes.

Thanks a lot!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc


Re: Doing a release?

2013-09-17 Thread Carmelo Amoroso



Il 18 settembre 2013 06:49:44 Thomas Petazzoni 
thomas.petazz...@free-electrons.com ha scritto:

Dear uClibc developers,



Hi Thomas


The last release of uClibc, 0.9.33.2, has been made well over a year
ago. However, there is fairly big number of improvements/fixes in the
master branch that would be interesting to have in a release. At the
Buildroot level, we now have 53 patches in your patch stack against
uClibc 0.9.33.2, all coming from the master branch if I'm correct (see
http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/uclibc/0.9.33.2).

At a first look it seems you have there some patches not part of any uclibc 
branches ... Likely it would be nice to include them as well.


For sure it's time for a 0.9.33.3 but I do also think that we can start a 
0.9.34 release from master.


Bernard what do you think ?


It'd be really nice if uClibc adopted a slightly more frequent release
schedule, to more easily allow downstream users to benefit from
improvements/fixes.



I agree. I know to have been less active recently as my major tasks are 
currently on the kernel side and SOC bring up but I'll try to respin my 
contribution to uclibc and upstream several patches we have in STMicro branch.



Thanks a lot!

Thomas


Cheers
Carmelo


--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc



Inviato con AquaMail per Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc