From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Krause Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:13:13 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] dependencies/cmake: blacklist cmake 3.7 In-Reply-To: <20170227205923.GE17670@free.fr> References: <1488148967-8055-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <1488215544.31837.9.camel@embedded.rocks> <20170227172540.GA17670@free.fr> <20170227183016.GC17670@free.fr> <20170227183547.GA1242@megas.kitware.com> <20170227205923.GE17670@free.fr> Message-ID: <1488229993.14030.12.camel@embedded.rocks> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Yann, Ben, On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 21:59 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Ben, All, > > On 2017-02-27 13:35 -0500, Ben Boeckel spake thusly: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 19:30:16 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > > Of course, this is only for when we build out own cmake, not when > > > we use > > > the host pre-installed one. I'll try to see tonight if we can do > > > similar > > > for it, too. > > > > It may make sense to support this upstream. CMake already has > > platform > > files for things such as Cray and Android (among others) which are > > just > > special kinds of Linux, like Buildroot. > > > > How often does that toolchain file change? Or does it depend on > > Buildroot settings? > > The toolchainfile.cmake is really specific to one build: it contains > the > path to the compiler, linker... It contains place-holders that get > replaced by a sed invocation: > > ????https://git.buildroot.org/buildroot/tree/package/pkg-cmake.mk#n23 > 6 > > However, the Modules/Platform/Buildroot.cmake would be just as simple > as (which is what I use currently): > > ????include(Platform/Linux) > ????set_property(GLOBAL PROPERTY FIND_LIBRARY_USE_LIB32_PATHS FALSE) > ????set_property(GLOBAL PROPERTY FIND_LIBRARY_USE_LIB64_PATHS FALSE) > > I don;t see that changing anytime soon. So, if that would be > aceptable > for upstream, then we could submit it, yes. > > However, I wonder if that's worth the effort... > > After all, this is a setting specific to us. I would have a hard time > arguing that upstream cmake should carry all such files for all > imaginable buildsystems. I replied to Bard King on the CMake mailing list [1]. From my view, there is an issue that /sysroot/usr/lib32 is not reported by the linker or not treated by CMake as an implicit runtime search path. However, I am neither a CMake nor a toolchain expert... > And if the solution is that simple and also works for host pre- > installed > cmake, then we can carry that ourselves, I believe. Sounds reasonable! [1] https://cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2017-February/065064.html J?rg