libmicrohttpd: update to 0.9.51
PATCH 1/1 libmicrohttpd: update to 0.9.51
Bfin workaround is not required if the gcc bfin patch is applied. (gcc: enable _REENTRANT for bfin when -lpthread is used)
--- package/libmicrohttpd/libmicrohttpd.hash | 2 +- package/libmicrohttpd/libmicrohttpd.mk | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
package/libmicrohttpd/libmicrohttpd.hash +1 -1
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ # Locally calculated -sha256 d1b6385068abded29b6470e383287aa7705de05ae3c08ad0bf5747ac4dc6ebd7 libmicrohttpd-0.9.50.tar.gz +sha256 3000bb0ba219061f2ea60251b8ea3d5f694e8c6ce1706bbff57e7e24867a23c7 libmicrohttpd-0.9.51.tar.gz
package/libmicrohttpd/libmicrohttpd.mk +3 -3
@@ -4,18 +4,18 @@ # ################################################################################ -LIBMICROHTTPD_VERSION = 0.9.50 +LIBMICROHTTPD_VERSION = 0.9.51 LIBMICROHTTPD_SITE = $(BR2_GNU_MIRROR)/libmicrohttpd LIBMICROHTTPD_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING LIBMICROHTTPD_INSTALL_STAGING = YES LIBMICROHTTPD_CONF_OPTS = --disable-curl --disable-examples LIBMICROHTTPD_CFLAGS = $(TARGET_CFLAGS) -std=c99 -# gcc on arc and bfin doesn't define _REENTRANT when -pthread is +# gcc on arc doesn't define _REENTRANT when -pthread is # passed while it should. Compensate this defiency here otherwise # libmicrohttpd configure script doesn't find that thread support is # enabled. -ifeq ($(BR2_arc)$(BR2_bfin),y) +ifeq ($(BR2_arc),y) LIBMICROHTTPD_CFLAGS += -D_REENTRANT endif
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
PATCH 1/1 libmicrohttpd: update to 0.9.51
Hello,
Quoted 4 lines · Waldemar Brodkorb
Bfin workaround is not required if the gcc bfin patch is applied. (gcc: enable
_REENTRANTfor bfin when -lpthread is used)Signed-off-by Waldemar Brodkorb <[email protected]>
I initially applied this patch, but immediately reverted it after I realized it was breaking a valid situation: you're breaking the build with the Blackfin external toolchains.
In addition to this, this patch is mixing a version bump, with removing some work-arounds, which are unrelated to the version bump.
So I've marked this patch as Rejected in patchwork. Please resend a patch that does just the version bump, and leaves the work-around in place.
Thanks,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 libmicrohttpd: update to 0.9.51
Hi,
Thomas Petazzoni wrote,
Quoted 11 lines
Hello,
Quoted 4 lines · Waldemar Brodkorb
Bfin workaround is not required if the gcc bfin patch is applied. (gcc: enable
_REENTRANTfor bfin when -lpthread is used)Signed-off-by Waldemar Brodkorb <[email protected]>I initially applied this patch, but immediately reverted it after I realized it was breaking a valid situation: you're breaking the build with the Blackfin external toolchains.
Okay. I always forget about the external toolchains.
Are there any plans to remove this very old toolchain? One of my motivation of getting internal bfin toolchain in a good shape was the possibility to remove the old toolchain to get rid of many package failures regarding the very old uClibc.
Quoted 2 lines
In addition to this, this patch is mixing a version bump, with removing some work-arounds, which are unrelated to the version bump.
The removal of the workround worked only in the latest version for me.
Quoted 3 lines
So I've marked this patch as Rejected in patchwork. Please resend a patch that does just the version bump, and leaves the work-around in place.
Okay. But I think version bumps are made mostly from other developers, I just needed it to remove the workaround. Sorry I should have mentioned that in the commit log.
best regards
Waldemar
PATCH 1/1 libmicrohttpd: update to 0.9.51
Hello,
Quoted 4 lines · Waldemar Brodkorb
Are there any plans to remove this very old toolchain? One of my motivation of getting internal bfin toolchain in a good shape was the possibility to remove the old toolchain to get rid of many package failures regarding the very old uClibc.
Right. What's the state of things with the new toolchain? Are C++ applications now working fine on the target? Are there any other known issues?
I guess we probably want to keep the Blackfin ADI toolchains around for a cycle or two, and then get rid of them.
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com