Re: [PATCH 05 of 13] cc/gcc: Add CUSTOM version and CUSTOM_LOCATION config options and GetCustom

[David Holsgrove <david dot holsgrove at xilinx dot com>]

Hi Yann, All,

On 17 October 2012 06:38, Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote:
> David, All,
>
> On Monday 15 October 2012 David Holsgrove wrote:
>> On 12 October 2012 06:24, Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote:
>> > I'd rather that all components behave the same: either all allow patching
>> > their custom locations, or none does (I'd prefer the latter).
>>
>> I had considered this, but the way the do_kernel_extract step
>> currently is setup, it will attempt to patch a linux-custom tarball,
>> after getting through the check that CT_KERNEL_LINUX_CUSTOM_LOCATION
>> is not a directory.
>
> Gah, you are right. The code in kernel/linux is wrong. So, I've changed
> the way the Linux kernel does its checks, with the following in mind:
>
> Type                  | Extract | Patch
> ----------------------+---------+-------
> Pre-installed headers |    N    |   N
> custom directory      |    N    |   N
> custom tarball        |    Y    |   N
> mainstream tarball    |    Y    |   Y
>
>> Personally, I dont think anyone would want, or reasonably expect, a
>> custom component to be patched, so I'm happy to skip CT_PATCH for
>> custom components altogether.
>
> Yes, that's the reasoning.
> I see that "custom location" thinggy as "I want to test my devel branch"
> of sorts.
>
> I will apply this to the other components:
>
> Type                  | Extract | Patch
> ----------------------+---------+-------
> custom directory      |    N    |   N
> custom tarball        |    Y    |   N
> mainstream tarball    |    Y    |   Y
>

Yes, I think thats the behaviour we want to see.

I've attached patches to the remaining components which follow this
table. I wasnt able to just return 0 from some of the extract steps,
as we continue on to carry out other tasks unrelated to extract /
patch the component (eg in gcc with the cp of ecj-latest.jar)

I also patched a little bug for the linux kernel with a missing 'then'
in your if statement.

Please let me know what you think?

thanks,
David

> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
>
> --
> .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
> |  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
> | +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
> | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
> | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
> '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
>
> --
> For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
>

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3080.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3081.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3082.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3083.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3084.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3085.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3086.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3087.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3089.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: crosstool-ng_3088.patch
Description: Binary data

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq