We are currently migrating Bugzilla to GitHub issues.
Any changes made to the bug tracker now will be lost, so please do not post new bugs or make changes to them.
When we're done, all bug URLs will redirect to their equivalent location on the new bug tracker.

Bug 3665

Summary: Android cmake build errors
Product: SDL Reporter: Olli Kallioinen <olli.kallioinen>
Component: buildAssignee: Sam Lantinga <slouken>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED QA Contact: Sam Lantinga <slouken>
Severity: normal    
Priority: P2 CC: icculus
Version: HG 2.0Keywords: target-2.0.6
Hardware: All   
OS: Android (All)   
Attachments: Fix for this issue
Fix for this issue

Description Olli Kallioinen 2017-06-08 19:16:17 UTC 
Created attachment 2756 [details]
Fix for this issue

I made a fix earlier for these android build issues:
https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3509
https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3267

But with further testing I came across a couple more build issues:
 - Some parts of SDL were were not being built (SDL_TIMERS and SDL_LOADSO).
 - threading was not working
 - Android mips and arm64 builds were failing

A patch that fixes these is attached.

The more obscure ABIs were not building because there is no hardware specific spinlock implementation for those. To be able to build for all available android ABIs I Enabled by default checking for GCC_ATOMICS also on clang. This is the only part of the changes that affects other platforms than Android too. Is this a good default for other platforms or was there some reason for not using builtin atomics by default when using clang?
Comment 1 Olli Kallioinen 2017-06-08 19:19:23 UTC 
Created attachment 2757 [details]
Fix for this issue
Comment 2 Ryan C. Gordon 2017-08-09 05:34:25 UTC 
(Sorry if you get a lot of copies of this email, we're touching dozens of bug reports right now.)

Tagging a bunch of bugs as target-2.0.6.

This means we're in the final stretch for an official SDL 2.0.6 release! These are the bugs we really want to fix before shipping if humanly possible.

That being said, we don't promise to fix them because of this tag, we just want to make sure we don't forget to deal with them before we bless a final 2.0.6 release, and generally be organized about what we're aiming to ship. After some debate, we might just remove this tag again and deal with it for a later release.

Hopefully you'll hear more about this bug soon. If you have more information (including "this got fixed at some point, nevermind"), we would love to have you come add more information to the bug report when you have a moment.

Thanks!
--ryan.
Comment 3 Sam Lantinga 2017-08-09 23:22:06 UTC 
Patch applied, thanks!
https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/rev/4ed2e42b7497