From: Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com>
To: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] native.bbclass: Override TARGET_ flags too
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:07:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140416100726.GA10280@mcrowe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19970662.Q9VEOkvyDS@peggleto-mobl5.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Wednesday 16 April 2014 at 10:59:27 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 April 2014 10:53:59 Mike Crowe wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 April 2014 at 10:49:48 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 16 April 2014 10:31:36 Mike Crowe wrote:
> > > > TARGET_LDFLAGS is currently defined in bitbake.conf to contain
> > > > ${TARGET_LINK_HASH_STYLE} which differs between MIPS and other
> > > > targets. Since TARGET_LDFLAGS is an exported variable it affects the
> > > > hash
> > > > of every shell task even if it is not used.
> > > >
> > > > We don't want native recipe tasks to have different hashes purely
> > > > because
> > > > they happen to have been built in order to satisfy dependencies for
> > > > different MACHINEs since this causes lots of churn in the native sysroot
> > > > when switching between MACHINEs.
> > > >
> > > > Making native.bbclass override TARGET_LDFLAGS to use BUILD_LDFLAGS
> > > > ensures
> > > > consistent hashes and is a sensible thing to be doing anyway.
> > >
> > > Just to be clear, for a native recipe how is TARGET_LDFLAGS entering the
> > > signatures? AIUI there ought to be indirection such that LDFLAGS is used
> > > and that is set from BUILD_LDFLAGS for a native recipe rather than
> > > TARGET_LDFLAGS.
> >
> > Because TARGET_LDFLAGS is an exported variable. LDFLAGS is set from
> > TARGET_LDFLAGS but (prior to this patch) only LDFLAGS is set to
> > BUILD_LDFLAGS; TARGET_LDFLAGS remains unchanged.
> >
> > See thread "export TARGET_LDFLAGS and native sstate"
> > <20140407155333.GA19351@mcrowe.com> .
> >
> > Should I improve the commit message?
>
> Sorry, I had missed the other thread. If it's exported then we probably do
> need it to have the correct value.
>
> Since this doesn't look like something recent though I'd like to understand
> why it being effectively wrong hasn't been an issue up to this point.
Perhaps few people are building in the same source tree for both MIPS and
non-MIPS. I don't think you'd notice otherwise.
Even then we only noticed because it seems to be a good way provoke races
in building whilst unpopulating the sysroot (e.g. my recent fix for
cmake-native vs libacl.)
Thanks.
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-16 10:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-16 9:31 [PATCH] native.bbclass: Override TARGET_ flags too Mike Crowe
2014-04-16 9:49 ` Paul Eggleton
2014-04-16 9:53 ` Mike Crowe
2014-04-16 9:59 ` Paul Eggleton
2014-04-16 10:07 ` Mike Crowe [this message]
2014-04-16 23:00 ` Khem Raj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140416100726.GA10280@mcrowe.com \
--to=mac@mcrowe.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox