qoriq_e6500_32 with smp - compiler error

[Gedare Bloom]

I reduced this just to:
---
[powerpc/qoriq_e6500_32_smp]
INHERIT = qoriq_e6500_32
RTEMS_SMP = True
---

And it breaks. If I don't use the INHERIT option, this works:
[powerpc/qoriq_e6500_32]
RTEMS_SMP = True

So the inheritance must not be picking something up.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 1:51 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
>
> [DEFAULT]
> BUILD_TESTS = True
>
> [sparc/erc32]
>
> [sparc64/usiii]
>
> [powerpc/qoriq_e6500_32]
>
> [powerpc/qoriq_e6500_32_smp]
> INHERIT = qoriq_e6500_32
> RTEMS_SMP = True
>
> [powerpc/qoriq_e6500_64]
>
> [powerpc/qoriq_e6500_64_smp]
> INHERIT = qoriq_e6500_64
> RTEMS_SMP = True
>
>
> It breaks before I get to the _64 ones though.
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 1:55 AM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 25/09/2020 21:35, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >
> > > When I build the qoriq_e6500_32 with SMP enabled in the new build
> > > system, I hit this error:
> > > [  77/4070] Compiling bsps/powerpc/shared/cache/cache.c
> > > In file included from ../../../bsps/powerpc/shared/cache/cache.c:319:
> > > ../../../bsps/powerpc/include/../../../bsps/shared/cache/cacheimpl.h:92:2:
> > > error: #error "CPU_DATA_CACHE_ALIGNMENT (" ## CPU_DATA_CACHE_ALIGNMENT
> > > ## ") is greater than CPU_CACHE_LINE_BYTES (" ## CPU_CACHE_LINE_BYTES
> > > ## ")"
> > >     92 | #error "CPU_DATA_CACHE_ALIGNMENT (" ##
> > > CPU_DATA_CACHE_ALIGNMENT ## ") is greater than CPU_CACHE_LINE_BYTES ("
> > > ## CPU_CACHE_LINE_BYTES ## ")"
> > >        |  ^~~~~
> > > In file included from ../../../bsps/powerpc/shared/cache/cache.c:319:
> > > ../../../bsps/powerpc/include/../../../bsps/shared/cache/cacheimpl.h:96:2:
> > > error: #error "CPU_INSTRUCTION_CACHE_ALIGNMENT is greater than
> > > CPU_CACHE_LINE_BYTES"
> > >     96 | #error "CPU_INSTRUCTION_CACHE_ALIGNMENT is greater than
> > > CPU_CACHE_LINE_BYTES"
> > >        |  ^~~~~
> > >
> > > I haven't been able to dig into it. The autotools build doesn't hit
> > > the same problem.
> > I cannot reproduce this issue, what is your configuration file?