From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Brodkin Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:36:57 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] ARC: switch to RC1 of upcoming arc-2015.06 tools In-Reply-To: <20150627092110.GI31780@waldemar-brodkorb.de> References: <1435346840-9677-1-git-send-email-abrodkin@synopsys.com> <20150627092110.GI31780@waldemar-brodkorb.de> Message-ID: <1435581416.30996.19.camel@synopsys.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Waldemar, On Sat, 2015-06-27 at 11:21 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > Is there any reason uClibc-ng 1.0.3 can not be used as default? > Do you have pending patches for ARC? Even thought there's no strong preference for us between uClibc and uClibc-ng the point is we've been using our GitHub uClibc repo (which is now a "mirror" of uClibc's git with a bit of a lag in updates - we do it manually from time to time) for all builds, i.e. we run regression tests and use for building everything uClibc but not uClibc -ng. And so we're pretty sure uClibc works for us. I'm not saying that uClibc-ng is any worse, no. But for current release cycle we'll claim support of "vanilla" uClibc. But I believe it's a good time now to discuss a possibility to switch to uClibc-ng for our following releases. I'm explicitly adding Vineet in Cc who is our uClibc maintainer so he may add his 2 cents in that discussion. -Alexey