From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpout.karoo.kcom.com (smtpout.karoo.kcom.com [212.50.160.34]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691036F894 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 16:49:56 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,811,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="63799650" Received: from deneb.mcrowe.com ([82.152.148.4]) by smtpout.karoo.kcom.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2014 17:49:58 +0100 Received: from mac by deneb.mcrowe.com with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WXCk3-0005Qn-Pz; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:49:51 +0100 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:49:51 +0100 From: Mike Crowe To: Chris Larson Message-ID: <20140407164951.GA20653@mcrowe.com> References: <20140407155333.GA19351@mcrowe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Mike Crowe , Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: export TARGET_LDFLAGS and native sstate X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:49:57 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 07 April 2014 at 09:17:38 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Mike Crowe wrote: > > > We're building for both ARM and MIPS-based MACHINEs in a single source > > tree. This seems to result in us compiling (or luckily most of the time > > resurrecting from sstate-cache) two different versions of all -native > > packages due to different base hashes. > > > > It seems that this difference in base hashes is due to the exported > > variable TARGET_LDFLAGS being different between the two CPUs: > > > > < export TARGET_LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed" > > --- > > > export TARGET_LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed" > > > > Heh, this i another case of a likely completely unnecessary export. > Software we build expects LDFLAGS to be used, not TARGET_LDFLAGS, so I > can't imagine that anything is using this export. Of course, it's > non-trivial to confirm that this is the case :) It did strike me as an odd thing to be exporting. Given the name I assumed it had something to do with building the toolchain. I notice though that the gcc recipes explicitly export LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET inside tasks based on TARGET_LDFLAGS anyway so the toolchain "should be fine". :) I'm happy to try our complete build without exporting TARGET_LDFLAGS as a first step but I realise that probably wouldn't be enough proof. Thanks. Mike.