Re: go-cross: incorrect dependency on tune-specific libgcc

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 08:59 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
> wrote:
[...]
>         diff --git a/meta/classes/go.bbclass b/meta/classes/go.bbclass
>         index 85f71a2e9a6..ac41c80d377 100644
>         --- a/meta/classes/go.bbclass
>         +++ b/meta/classes/go.bbclass
>         @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ export CGO_CPPFLAGS = "${TARGET_CPPFLAGS}"
>          export CGO_CXXFLAGS = "${TARGET_CC_ARCH}${TOOLCHAIN_OPTIONS}
>         ${TARGET_CXXFLAGS}"
>          export CGO_LDFLAGS = "${TARGET_CC_ARCH}${TOOLCHAIN_OPTIONS}
>         ${TARGET_LDFLAGS}"
>         
>         -DEPENDS += "go-cross-${TARGET_ARCH}"
>         +DEPENDS += "go-cross-${TUNE_PKGARCH}"
>          DEPENDS_class-native += "go-native"
>         
>          FILES_${PN}-staticdev += "${GOSRC_FINAL}/${GO_IMPORT}"
[...]

> This requires any layers with existing DEPENDS on go-cross-${TARGET}
> to be updated,

"inherit go" hides that detail, so only recipes which depend on
go-cross-${TARGET_ARCH} directly instead of using go.bbclass need to be
updated (and perhaps should be changed to use go.bbclass instead?).

But I'm not a go expert, so let's hear from those first ;-}

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.