Re: [PATCH] tools: Add install/uninstall targets to tests/x86_emulator

[Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>]

Hi,

On 16/05/2024 13:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.05.2024 14:29, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> On 16/05/2024 12:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>> Bring test_x86_emulator in line with other tests by adding
>>>> install/uninstall rules.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
>>>> index 834b2112e7fe..30edf7e0185d 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
>>>> @@ -269,8 +269,15 @@ clean:
>>>>  .PHONY: distclean
>>>>  distclean: clean
>>>>  
>>>> -.PHONY: install uninstall
>>>> -install uninstall:
>>>> +.PHONY: install
>>>> +install: all
>>>> +	$(INSTALL_DIR) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)
>>>> +	$(if $(TARGET-y),$(INSTALL_PROG) $(TARGET-y) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN))
>>>> +
>>>> +.PHONY: uninstall
>>>> +uninstall:
>>>> +	$(RM) -- $(addprefix $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)/,$(TARGET-y))
>>>> +
>>>
>>> FWIW, should you check that HOSTCC == CC before installing?  Otherwise
>>> I'm unsure of the result in cross-compiled builds, as the x86_emulator
>>> is built with HOSTCC, not CC.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Roger.
>>
>> Right...
>>
>> More generally, should we do s/CC/HOSTCC/ on all compiler checks? I see
>> no particular reason to do them on $(CC) rather than the actual compiler
>> used during build.
> 
> No. There really is a mix here, intentionally. Anything built through testcase.mk
> is using CC, and hence respective checking needs to use CC, too. That said, I
> don't think the split is done quite correctly just yet, which may raise the
> question of whether having the split is actually worth it.
> 
> Jan

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Why do we compile pieces of the test binary
with different toolchains?

At a glance it seems inconsequential in the native case and
fully broken on the cross-compiled case (which I guess is what Roger was
hinting at and I failed to notice).

Why the distinction? What am I missing?

Cheers,
Alejandro