[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] toolchain: create symlink to 'lib' from ARCH_LIB_DIR iso fixed lib32/lib64

[Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>]

On 07/15/15 12:08, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>> On 07/15/15 10:59, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:57:52 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well that is part of the discussion: conceptually I believe that the
>>>> symlink creation is part of the toolchain as a whole. It needs to be
>>>> done before libc, but actually all remaining toolchain components will
>>>> probably rely on it, and also the packages.
>>>> By placing it in gcc-initial I believe it is pretty hidden.
>>>
>>> It is also pretty hidden to put the hook for a given package outside of
>>> this package .mk file.
>>>
>>>> Moreover, suppose we add support for the llvm/clang compiler. For such
>>>> toolchains, we'd also need the symbolic links, so that code would have
>>>> to be duplicated...
>>>
>>> I don't think trying to take llvm/clang into account really makes sense
>>> here. It's probably going to be so much different than what we have
>>> today that lots of things would have to be reworked anyway.
>>
>>  Just to be clear: for me this is a bikeshedding discussion. Neither is right,
>> so just go for one.
>>
>>  BTW, yesterday I did ask everyone in Toulouse if it would be OK have add to the
>> gcc-final hook from toolchain-buildroot.mk, and nobody really opposed (though I
>> don't think you really said anything, ThomasP).
>>
> 
> Suppose we do add the hook in gcc-initial, where would the link target
> be defined? So this code:
> 
> +# MIPS64/n32 requires lib32 even though it's a 64-bit arch.
> +ifeq ($(BR2_ARCH_IS_64)$(BR2_MIPS_NABI32),y)
> +TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_LIB_SYMLINK = lib64
> +else
> +TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_LIB_SYMLINK = lib32
> +endif
> 
> 
> Do you think that belongs also in gcc-initial? Or should that stay in
> buildroot-toolchain?

 IMHO it should certainly stay together with the piece of code that actually
uses it - which is the point of putting it into gcc-initial to begin with
(otherwise the adding of the hook is not in the same file as the rest of
gcc-initial). And of course, it should be called GCC_INITIAL_* then.

 Regards,
 Arnout

-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle      arnout dot vandecappelle at essensium dot com
Senior Embedded Software Architect . . . . . . +32-478-010353 (mobile)
Essensium, Mind division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium . . . . . BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF