From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Beno=c3=aet_Th=c3=a9baudeau?= Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:12:44 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] pacakge/qt5/qt5base: fix build with ccache In-Reply-To: References: <1440499298-39957-1-git-send-email-benoit@wsystem.com> <20150826154534.3e67c9bc@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <55DEC67C.6000500@wsystem.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, On 27/08/2015 00:10, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:41:38 +0200, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote: >>> +- # Check if QMAKE_CXX points to an executable. >>> +- ensurePathEnv() >>> +- for (dir, QMAKE_PATH_ENV) { >>> +- exists($$dir/$${QMAKE_CXX}$$sfx): \ >>> +- return() >>> +- } >> >> Instead of removing this entire piece of code, can you try to replace >> just this last part by something like: >> >> system($${QMAKE_CXX}$$sfx --version): return() >> >> Instead of trying to look for a file, it will actually try to run the >> compiler. >> >> Also, can you report the bug and submit the patch upstream to Qt? See >> https://bugreports.qt.io/secure/Dashboard.jspa. > > I have opened a bug report upstream as you suggested: > https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-47951 > > As explained in this report, I think that your suggestion would work > for Buildroot (not yet tested), but not for upstream Qt. > > My point with this patch was that upstream could consider this > Buildroot use case as illegal because the definition of QMAKE_CXX > (http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qmake-variable-reference.html#qmake-cxx) only > mentions a filename and a path as possibilities. In that case, the bug > is in Buildroot, and since this sanity check of the compiler is not > needed for Buildroot, we can just remove this test. If we don't want a > local patch for this, maybe we could use a wrapper above ccache, or > put ccache into QMAKE_CXX and the compiler into QMAKE_CXXFLAGS (not > tested, and a bit ugly). > > Wait and see what upstream says. Upstream recommends this approach: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-creator/2014-January/003148.html What do you think? Best regards, Beno?t